The evolution of blond hair and blue eyes among Nordics
Peter Frost has written a cool paper on the evolution of blond hair and the origin of the remarkable diversity of eye and hair color in Northern and Eastern Europeans. His paper will be published in the upcoming March edition of the journal Evolution and Human Behavior. Frost is spot-on in nailing intense sexual selection as the primary reason for the high prevalence of blondness, which is of recent origin (less than 20,000 years old), and the unusual diversity of hair and eye color among Northern and Eastern Europeans. Whereas Frost’s proposed reason for the intense sexual selection is open to debate, the conclusion that intense sexual selection is implicated is almost certain. I am including his paper in this post, but will first mention some important implications.
Frost also proposes that the extreme depigmentation seen among Nordics is partly related to sexual selection. Frost mentions traits other than pigmentation that suggest strong sexual selection among Nordics, namely the more feminine looks of white women, on average, than women in non-white populations. I would like to add a high prevalence of fine facial features, too, and certain parts of the face that bear the signature of sexual selection, such as the jaw, whereby the chin is better developed than in non-Nordics, even though all other parts of the jaw have shrunk significantly.
For rapid changes to occur under intense sexual selection, two conditions should be met. Firstly, there has to be a high level of sexual freedom, especially afforded to women, and secondly, there also has to be a high level of variability with respect to reproductive success in the population, with individuals having less aesthetically desirable traits (ancestral traits) being disproportionately likely to die without reproducing. Among human populations, it is very clear that the availability of sexual freedom, especially to women, is much higher in Northern Europe than in most other societies, and it has been this way for a long time, except for a short period when the Church was powerful in Northern Europe. In many human societies, young individuals are not allowed to date, marriages are arranged and fornication or adultery are met with drastic consequences. Therefore, once again, such cultural differences are consistent with Frost’s hypothesis of more intense recent (on the order of tens of thousands of years at most) sexual selection in Nordics than in other populations.
People in many non-European societies, such as in Middle Eastern and South Asian societies, pride themselves on their alleged superior morality regarding sexual behavior, failing to realize that moral superiority can only be claimed if their sexual behavior remains the same when they have the same opportunity for sexual impropriety as in the West, which is surely not the case. Arabs and South Asians can sing paeans to their “superior sexual morality” all they want; the consequences of the low level of sexual freedom and arranged marriages in their cultures are very clear: the unattractive among them, thanks to not having to find mates on their own, are more likely to reproduce than unattractive whites; thereby, these populations have been evolving in attractiveness less slowly than whites. One will find few whites who would disagree that non-Europeans in general, including non-European Caucasoid types, look far less attractive than whites, on average, but also, few non-European Caucasoid types would disagree with the statement, too. I know for a fact that Razib Khan of Gene Expression blog thinks that white women, especially blondes, are much superior in looks to Bangladeshi women.
This ties in to mass migration of non-whites into the West. If there are sufficient non-whites around, unattractive whites, who would until the recent past disproportionately die without being able to find a mate and reproduce, may end up with a non-white person who would be more than happy to get a white mate. For instance, a black man would typically prefer a 250-pound white woman to a 350-pound black woman. The resulting offspring of such unions, being closer to whites in looks, would be more acceptable as a mate to a greater proportion of whites than the non-white parent, which in turn will set the stage for gradual creeping of non-white genetics into the white gene pool, resulting in reduced attractiveness of the descendents of modern whites. In addition, if mass migration of the likes of Muslims reduces sexual freedom in the West, then the mulatto descendents of present-day Europeans will also have less of an opportunity to reacquire the looks of their white forebears via intense sexual selection. The conclusions are clear...we have yet more reasons to keep the non-white masses out of the West, even if they are as intelligent and as well-behaved as whites are. Personally, I don’t have a problem with a small non-white presence in the West, but allowing mass migration of non-whites to the West is madness.
Peter Frost’s paper cites some genetic data to support greater reproductive skew among white males than non-white males, which is consistent with more intense sexual selection among Europeans in recent history. In this regard, I would like to add the following three papers that, taken together, show similar evidence:
Pereira, L., Dupanloup, I., Rosser, Z. H., Jobling, M. A., & Barbujani, G. (2001). Y-chromosome mismatch distributions in Europe. Mol Biol Evol, 18(7), 1259-1271.
Pritchard, J. K., Seielstad, M. T., Perez-Lezaun, A., & Feldman, M. W. (1999). Population growth of human Y chromosomes: a study of Y chromosome microsatellites. Mol Biol Evol, 16(12), 1791-1798.
Shen, P., Wang, F., Underhill, P. A., Franco, C., Yang, W. H., Roxas, A., et al. (2000). Population genetic implications from sequence variation in four Y chromosome genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 97(13), 7354-7359.
Also consider the following pictures, starting from Miss India 2005, Amrita Thapar, who has a manly face.
Compare Miss India 2005 to Miss USA 2005, Chelsea Cooley, below.
Look at the top three contestants in the Miss India 2005 beauty pageant.
Now look at the top-ranked contestants in the Miss USA 2005 beauty pageant; shown clockwise from top left: Brittany Hogan, Kristen Johnson, Melissa Witek and Jill Gulseth.
It is unlikely that beauty pageants in India have to deal with political correctness to the extent that is seen in the U.S.A. Therefore, the “beauties” shown below -- from the 2005 Miss India beauty pageant -- are probably among the better looking Hindu women.
Note that Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid elements are easily discernible in the women shown above. If race mixing is supposed to increase physical attractiveness, I for sure do not want my female descendents to look as “attractive” as the women above and would prefer the “less attractive” white look.
Hindu’s select their actresses for a high level of attractiveness. Look at the three Hindu actresses below; from top to bottom: Shilpa Shetty, Madhuri Dixit and Preity Zinta.
Compare the Hindu actresses to the three Nordic women below; from top to bottom: Ragnhild Marie Alvær, Sharon van der Knaap and Jennifer Avalon.
It may be claimed that I have deliberately picked unattractive Hindu women for comparative purposes, but a quick look at the photos of the untouchables of India suffices to convince that the Hindu women shown above are among the better looking ones in India.
Of course, there are even better looking Hindus as shown below, but guess who they owe their good looks to? Shown clockwise from top: Aditi Govitrikar, Hritik Roshan and Arun Nair.
Finally, look at the physique of the woman that many Hindus consider to be the most beautiful woman in the world, Aishwarya Rai, who has broad shoulders and a wide waist, and compare her physique to that of the white woman shown below her, the likes of which are so many in number that the entire disk space allotted to this site could be easily filled with their pictures.
Hindus and especially Muslims can keep their “morally superior” sexuality to themselves. If more intense sexual selection -- having the side effect of greater allowability of sexual debauchery -- produces the likes of white women, I’d prefer it any day to a system that is far less successful at naturally getting rid of elements of the looks of primitive man. Black Africans would appear to have been in a position to improve their looks, too, given their high rates of promiscuity, but like their abysmally low IQ, they do not seem to have evolved a better aesthetic sense, and retain some of the most primitive facial features around.
Peter Frost’s paper follows.
European hair and eye color: A case of frequency-dependent sexual selection?
Peter Frost
Abstract
Human hair and eye color is unusually diverse in northern and eastern Europe. The many alleles involved (at least seven for hair color) and their independent origin over a short span of evolutionary time indicate some kind of selection. Sexual selection is particularly indicated because it is known to favor color traits and color polymorphisms. In addition, hair and eye color is most diverse in what used to be, when first peopled by hunter-gatherers, a unique ecozone of low-latitude continental tundra. This type of environment skews the operational sex ratio (OSR) of hunter-gatherers toward a male shortage in two ways: (1) men have to hunt highly mobile and spatially concentrated herbivores over longer distances, with no alternate food sources in case of failure, the result being more deaths among young men; (2) women have fewer opportunities for food gathering and thus require more male provisioning, the result being less polygyny. These two factors combine to leave more women than men unmated at any one time. Such an OSR imbalance would have increased the pressures of sexual selection on early European women, one possible outcome being an unusual complex of color traits: hair- and eye-color diversity and, possibly, extreme skin depigmentation.
Keywords: Gender roles; Monogamy; Pigmentation; Polygyny; Sexual selection; Upper Paleolithic.
1. Introduction
Human hair and eye color is unusually diverse in a geographic area centered on the East Baltic and covering northern and eastern Europe (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2). Within this area, eyes are not only brown but also blue, gray, hazel, or green, while hair is not only black but also brown, flaxen, golden, or red (Beals & Hoijer, 1965, pp. 212–214). As one moves outward from this area, color diversity declines markedly with eyes becoming uniformly brown and hair uniformly black.
Fig. 1. Hair-color diversity in and near Europe (after Beals & Hoijer, 1965, p. 214). (Reprinted with permission from Beals et al., “An Introduction to Anthropology,” 3rd ed. Published by Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA. Copyright © 1965 by Pearson Education.)
Fig. 2. Eye-color diversity in and near Europe (after Beals & Hoijer, 1965, p. 213). (Reprinted with permission from Beals et al., “An Introduction to Anthropology,” 3rd ed. Published by Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA. Copyright © 1965 by Pearson Education.)
Is this diversity due to chance? In particular, could it reflect founder effects during the repeopling of glaciated Europe 15,000 to 10,000 years ago? When a founder group breaks off from its parent population, such “sampling” may indeed increase the frequency of a variant hair- or eye-color allele. It is less probable that two alleles of the same gene would become more frequent, and this probability would decline exponentially with each additional allele. Yet the hair-color gene, MC1R, has at least seven phenotypically distinct alleles that exist only in Europe (Box et al., 1997, Harding et al., 2000 and Rana et al., 1999). Furthermore, eye-color diversity results from another set of alleles at a locus that is at best weakly linked to hair color (Eiberg & Mohr, 1987).
Is this diversity due to relaxation of selection and a resulting accumulation of variant alleles? Harding et al. (2000) have investigated this evolutionary scenario and found that the time to the most recent common ancestral hair color would be about a million years, with the redhead alleles alone being approximately 80,000 years old. Templeton (2002) has come to a similar conclusion: If the cause were relaxation of selection, the current level of hair-color diversity would have taken 850,000 years to develop. Yet modern humans have been in Europe for approximately 35,000 years.
Is this diversity due to admixture with older European populations, notably the Neanderthals? Recently, human mtDNA has been retrieved from skeletal material on both sides of the transition from Neanderthals to modern humans: No genetic continuity is discernible between the late Neanderthals and the early modern Europeans (Caramelli et al., 2003). In addition, the mtDNA and dental traits of Neanderthals are no more similar to those of present-day Europeans than they are to those of any other modern human population (Krings et al., 1999, Ovchinnikov et al., 2000 and Tyrrell & Chamberlain, 1998). Neanderthal admixture seems to have been minor, if not negligible, and could hardly account for the high proportion of Europeans who deviate from the species norm of black hair and brown eyes.
Is this diversity due, then, to some selective force, either natural or sexual selection? The first kind of selection is unlikely. As a rule, highly visible color traits are not adaptations to the natural environment, which typically favors an unobtrusive, cryptic coloration as a means to evade predators. It has been suggested that a lighter colored iris may offer more visual acuity in dim light, such as in the misty maritime environments of northwestern Europe (Short, 1975). Eye color, however, is polymorphic over a much larger area of Europe, most of which is typically continental in climate. It is also unclear why selection for visual acuity would have favored more variability in eye color as opposed to a simple reduction in eye pigment.
The alternative, sexual selection, has already been advanced to explain Europe's hair- and eye-color diversity (Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994, p. 266). This kind of selection is known to favor colorful traits, but there is little consensus on the reasons why. It may be that bright colors stimulate sexual attraction in the brain through (1) mate-assessment algorithms that interpret pigment production as a sign of health and, hence, mate quality; (2) sex-recognition algorithms that pick out sex-specific color stimuli and respond open-endedly with stronger responses to more intense colors; and (3) general monitoring algorithms that respond to highly visible stimuli and indirectly alert other systems, including those related to sexual attraction (Farr, 1980, Hamilton & Zuk, 1982, Kirkpatrick, 1987 and Manning, 1979, pp. 66–75). The opposite sex may exploit all three algorithm types by intensifying its color stimuli until functional constraints intervene or until the cost of easier detection by predators exceeds the benefit of stronger sexual attraction (Endler, 1980 and Endler, 1991).
Under certain conditions, sexual selection may also diversify color traits within a single population. When an individual is faced with potential mates of equal value, it will tend to select the one that “stands out from the crowd,” that is, that has the rarest color morph. The selection is frequency-dependent, declining in strength as the rare morph becomes more common and tending toward an equilibrium that maximizes color diversity. This rare-color advantage has been studied mainly in fruit flies and guppies but has also been reported in a parasitic wasp, in red flour beetles, in ladybugs, and in leafroller moths (Anderson, 1969, Brooks, 2002, Farr, 1980, Grant et al., 1974, Hughes et al., 1999, Muggleton, 1979, Simchuk, 2001 and Sinnock, 1970). There are also a number of bird species that exhibit color polymorphisms for which the mode of selection remains unclear (Lank, 2002). Whatever the cause, color polymorphisms are relatively uncommon. They are often hindered by two evolutionary constraints: (1) high predation pressure, this being a constraint on color traits in general and (2) the presence of related species within the same geographic range, apparently because too much intraspecific variability interferes with species recognition and leads to hybridization (Endler, 1980).
Many evolutionary biologists dislike the concept of rare-color advantage. There is no gain in fitness from sexual attraction to unusual colors; therefore natural selection should eliminate such nonadaptive behavior. Yet it is difficult to see how, just as it is difficult to see how we can counter the many subterfuges that advertisers use to attract our notice. There are good adaptive reasons for paying attention when an eye-catching object enters our field of view, and it is impossible to disable this response in advance for sexual attraction, given that the nature of the object (animate/inanimate, conspecific/nonconspecific, male/female) is determined at a later stage of mental processing. At that stage, the increased attention could be reversed or given a negative meaning. But there would be a cost: not only in additional processing time but also in overcorrection and undercorrection–like a spam-filter that fails to screen out all unwanted e-mails while blocking some legitimate ones. The cost may be justified if attraction to rare-color morphs leads to hybridization or if the color itself is somehow maladaptive. Otherwise, the benefit will not justify the cost.
Rare-color advantage has been reported in humans. Thelen (1983) presented three series of slides showing blonde and brunette females and asked male participants to select the one from each series that they would most prefer to marry. The first series showed 6 brunettes, the second 1 brunette and 5 blondes, and the third 1 brunette and 11 blondes. For the same brunette, preference increased significantly from the first to the third series, that is, in proportion to the rarity of her hair color. The same effect was observed, albeit to a lesser extent, when the study was repeated with male photos and female participants. These findings have some support from other studies. Schweder (1994) found that women tended to change their hair color and hair form to a type that was less common in the general population. Riedl (1990) found that men tended to prefer female faces that diverge from the norm. Finally, Ellis (1928, pp. 182–183) noted less preference for blonde women in England than in France, which he ascribed to the higher prevalence of blondness among the English.
Rare-color advantage may have caused hair and eye color to diversify in ancestral humans, there being neither of the evolutionary constraints mentioned above, that is, high predation pressure or likelihood of hybridization. Outside Africa, there were only two potential predators: wolves and bears, the latter being uncommon and the former only an occasional threat to recent hunter-gatherers (Hoffecker, 2002, pp. 238, 240). Hybridization was just as nonproblematic. All other Homo populations had been reduced to extinction or relic status by 30,000 BP.
It is less clear, though, why hair and eye color diversified in Europe and not elsewhere. Rare-color advantage is a special case of sexual selection, and the intensity of sexual selection normally varies with the operational sex ratio (OSR; the ratio of unmated males to unmated females). The usual pattern is too many males competing for too few females (pregnancy and early infant care exclude some females from mating at any one time). But why would there have been more competition for women in northern and eastern Europe? If anything, there should have been more in sub-Saharan Africa or Papua New Guinea, where a high incidence of polygyny leaves fewer women unmated.
I will argue here that the usual pattern of too many males and too few females was reversed among ancestral Europeans, specifically among the highly mobile groups that once inhabited the continental tundra of ice-age Europe. This environment exposed men to a higher risk of hunting mortality while limiting their ability to provide for more than one wife. With fewer men altogether and even fewer polygynous ones, women had to compete for a limited supply of potential husbands. There was thus sexual selection, but it acted primarily on women—not on men.
2. The Eurasian tundra belt: low-latitude west and high-latitude east
As modern humans spread out of Africa during the Upper Paleolithic, they entered new environments, including one that no longer exists. Loess-steppe covered the plains of northern and eastern Europe during successive ice ages and interglacials until 10,000 years ago (Fig. 3). Quite unlike today's northern barrens, it combined Arctic tundra with fertile loess soil and low latitudes, the Eurasian tundra belt having been pushed far to the south by the Scandinavian icecap. Long intense sunlight favored a lush growth of mosses, lichens, grasses, and low shrubs with grazing herds of mammoths, reindeer, bison, and horses. Despite high bioproductivity, Europe's tundra plains posed several adaptive challenges. Winter temperatures averaged −20 to −30 °C, with little natural protection. Wood for fuel or shelter was scarce. Finally, almost all consumable biomass was in the form of large herds of migrating herbivores (Hoffecker, 2002, pp. 21–26, 32–34).
Fig. 3. Major vegetation zones in Europe approximately 18,000 BP (after Mellars, 1985, p. 275, reprinted with permission from Elsevier).
South of 60°N, the Eurasian tundra belt lay entirely within Europe. East of the Urals, it narrowed and ran further north across Asia and into Beringia. Colder and drier with proportionately less fertile loess, this eastern end had a lower carrying capacity for herbivores (Goebel, 1999 and Hoffecker, 2002, p. 22).
3. Continental Arctic tundra: consequences of human adaptation
3.1. Less food gathering = increased female dependence on male provisioning
In adapting to Arctic tundra, modern humans had to change their sexual division of labor, which normally allocated food gathering to women and hunting to men. Women now processed meat provided by men and did tasks unrelated to food procurement, such as garment making and shelter building. Men procured almost all of the food (Hoffecker, 2002, p. 8).
We can see this task reallocation by comparing recent hunter-gatherers from the Tropics to the Arctic. Near the equator, women procure about half of the family food supply by gathering berries, fruits, roots, grubs, eggs, and other sessile items, these tasks being more compatible than hunting with the demands of pregnancy, breast feeding, and infant transport (Kelly, 1955, pp. 268–269). Away from the equator, the cold season lengthens and gatherable food becomes harder to find, declining from 40% to 55% of the family food supply in hunter-gatherers below 40°N to less than 10% above 60°N (Martin, 1974, pp. 16–18). The end point of this trend is Arctic tundra. Among the Caribou Inuit, female food gathering is limited to eggs (during 2 weeks in summer), raw gadfly larvae, the root of a plant species, and some berries (Birket-Smith, 1929, p. 133).
On this north–south continuum, ice-age European hunter-gatherers were much closer to the ‘Arctic’ end, with most of their food being procured through hunting. Dickson (1990, p. 180) summarizes the evidence: the abundance of game animals in Europe during the late Pleistocene; the volume of animal bone at archeological sites like Solutré, Moldova, Predmosti, and Dolni Vestonice; the large amount of usable meat on late Pleistocene game animals; and the lack of wear on Upper Paleolithic dentition, indicating a grit-free, carnivorous diet (Butzer, 1964, p. 374; Dahlberg & Carbonell, 1961). In addition, biochemical analysis of human remains from a British Upper Paleolithic site reveals a diet high in animal protein, principally from aurochs and red deer (Richards et al., 2000). At Czech, Russian, and British Upper Paleolithic sites, similar analyses reveal a diet high in protein from terrestrial herbivores, waterfowl, and fish (Richards et al., 2001). None of this means that food gathering was absent, only that it was less important. Indeed, a Czech site has yielded evidence of fleshy taproots from charred plant remains (Mason et al., 1994). The remains date, however, to approximately 26,000 BP, when forest-steppe predominated, and the investigators concluded that such foods were limited to southern and central Europe.
3.2. Increased female dependence on male provisioning = constraints on polygyny
As males assume more responsibility for food procurement, polygyny becomes more difficult. In his review of Inuit mating systems, Kjellström (1973, p. 118) concludes, “Since the duty of being a provider was more onerous for the man who had two or more wives, this meant that as a rule it was only the really able and skilful hunters and fishers who could manage this double duty.” Hodge (1959[1905], p. 809) concurs: “monogamy is prevalent, as the support of several wives is possible only for the expert hunter.” This pattern also prevailed among the Chukchi of northeastern Siberia: “The Chukchees commonly live in monogamy; it is only exceptionally that they have two wives” (Nordenskiold, 1882, p. 504). According to the earliest ethnography of the Sami of northern Scandinavia, “Neither is it Lawful for them to Marry more than one Wife at a time, or to be divorced from her. Polygamy and Divorces…, are Things unknown to the Laplanders, both whilst they were Pagans, and since” (Scheffer, 1704, p. 296).
These observations are supported by genetic data. The ratio of Y to X chromosome variability rises markedly as one goes from long-established tropical populations (sub-Saharan Africans, New Guineans, and Aboriginal Australians) to other populations (Europeans, Asians, and Amerindians), indicating that the latter have had a higher proportion of men contributing to the gene pool (Dupanloup et al., 2003; see also Scozzari et al., 1997 and Torroni et al., 1990). More work is needed to determine whether this trend peaks in recent Arctic hunter-gatherers.
3.3. Longer hunting distances = higher death rate among young men
As hunter-gatherers adapt to less tropical environments, men have to cover more terrain while hunting, partly because they need to hunt more (to offset the decline in food gathering) and partly because the game animals themselves roam over a larger territory, the land supporting less vegetation at colder temperatures (Kelly, 1955, pp. 128–132). Hunting distance peaks in the continental Arctic, where almost all potential food is in the form of wide-ranging and highly mobile herds (Hoffecker, 2002, p. 8). It then decreases further north in the extreme Arctic, where hunters cover shorter distances in pursuit of solitary game, fish, and seals (Kelly, 1955, p. 129).
As hunting distance lengthens, more young men die from starvation, accidents, or exposure. Among the Chukchi of the 18th to early 20th centuries, men died young because they followed reindeer over the tundra with a minimum of possessions; in contrast, men lived longer among the Nenets because herd dogs confined the semidomesticated reindeer to nearby pastures (Krupnik, 1985). Arctic populations that still hunted wild game thus had highly skewed sex ratios. Among 19th century Labrador Inuit, only 57 males remained for every 100 females in the 15+ age bracket because of hunting deaths from drowning or exposure (Scheffel, 1984). Among Inuit, in general, “the preponderance of adult women is generally explained by the higher death rate among men due to the natural hazards of hunting” (Weyer, 1932, pp. 135–136).
Some evidence points to long hunting distances and high male mortality on the tundra plains of Upper Paleolithic Europe. Many central Russian sites contain large quantities of black flint from sources at least 130–150 km away and other raw materials from sources up to 650 km away (Hoffecker, 2002, pp. 184–185, 248). Human remains from Upper Paleolithic Europe were once thought to be mainly males (Binford, 1968, Harrold, 1980 and Vallois, 1961), but reanalysis with improved sexing criteria has found that females predominate, suggesting either that many men died under conditions unsuited for burial, such as hunting accidents, or that male burials were less conducive to preservation, such as in aboveground coffins (Mallegni & Fabbri, 1995). The Maszycka Cave in Poland has provided the only ‘snapshot’ of a single extended family from the Upper Paleolithic: the remains of three men, five women, and eight children, all apparently killed and partially eaten (Kozlowski & Sachse-Kozlowska, 1995).
3.4. Constraints on polygyny+higher death rate among young men = skewed OSR
With less polygyny and more young men dying, the OSR is skewed toward a male shortage. Many women lose reproductive time, even among non-Arctic hunter-gatherers with less skewed OSRs. Among the !Kung, about 75% of all women lose some reproductive time while waiting between partners, and 10–20% lose 5 to 15 years. “A relative scarcity of husbands, then, is a regular and expected part of the !Kung marriage system” (Howell, 1979, pp. 247–250). One might expect that this female surplus would encourage more men to take second wives, but “having two families simultaneously is difficult to manage, both economically (in providing for a large number of dependents) and socially (in avoiding the conflicts and irritations of polygamous marriages)” (Howell, 1979, p. 272). Each additional wife, with her offspring, decreases the ratio of food-providing adults to food-consuming children (Howell, 1979, pp. 53–54).
These constraints on polygyny peak in Arctic tundra environments, where women have few opportunities for food gathering. Parallel to this trend, death rates among young men peak in the continental Arctic. OSRs should therefore be most skewed among hunter-gatherers (or rather hunters) living on continental Arctic tundra. Today, this environment is a shadow of its former self, both in the size of its migrating herds and in the extent of its land mass, essentially the northern fringes of mainland Eurasia and North America. Most of its indigenous peoples–low-Arctic Inuit, Chukchi, Yukaghir, Tungus, Nenets, and Sami (Lapps)–rely on a mix of maritime fishing and inland hunting; thus, their OSR characteristics are, at best, indicative of Upper Paleolithic conditions. Nonetheless, if we look at the Labrador Inuit of the 19th century, a very lopsided sex ratio appears at all reproductive ages, with many women, especially widows, shut out of the marriage market entirely (Scheffel, 1984). In the Siberian Arctic east of the Taymyr Peninsula, in the 18th to early 20th centuries, women outnumbered men at all reproductive ages because the men still followed reindeer on foot and suffered proportionately higher death rates. (Krupnik, 1985). OSR skewing seems to have occurred even further west, where reindeer were already semidomesticated in historic times. Sami of 18th to 19th century Finland had female-biased OSRs, although the same was true among the mainly agricultural Finns (Lummaa et al., 1998). Indeed, female-biased OSRs prevailed in most preindustrial European societies, reflecting perhaps the key importance of paternal investment and also cultural constraints on polygyny that predated Christianity (Seccombe, 1992, pp. 184–190; Sherman, 1922, Vol. II, p. 475; Tacitus, 1970, 18; Vatin, 1970, p. 201).
North of the continental Arctic, in the extreme Arctic, OSRs were more evenly balanced and sometimes had a male surplus (Schrire & Steiger, 1974). First, male mortality was lower. Men hunted dispersed marine animals and thus avoided the ‘feast or famine’ dilemma that occurred when hunting spatially concentrated terrestrial herbivores. Second, female mortality was higher, specifically female infanticide. In the extreme Arctic, parents viewed the prospects for a daughter as problematic. She would have trouble finding a husband locally (the low carrying capacity of the land limited the local group's size), and thus she would probably marry into another group and not support her parents later on, either directly or through her future husband (Balikci, 1967, Riches, 1974 and Smith & Smith, 1994). At lower latitudes, where the land had a higher carrying capacity, female infanticide occurred much less often, apparently because bigger and closer groups allowed women to marry locally and provide their parents with ‘son-in-law payback’ (Riches, 1974 and Schrire & Steiger, 1974).
4. Peopling of the Eurasian tundra belt
Modern humans penetrated the Eurasian tundra belt no earlier than 35,000 years ago, at first in its most southerly and resource-rich portion—southwestern France (Mellars, 1985). This ‘beachhead’ was dissected by valleys that offered wild fruits, grains, tubers, salmon, and non-Arctic game, as well as migrating reindeer in the fall and winter (Blades, 1999a, Blades, 1999b and Mellars, 1985). The reindeer may have drawn humans out of the sheltered valleys, briefly at first, and then for longer periods, as hunting bands adapted to the new niche. Eventually, some bands left the valleys to hunt year-round on the surrounding tundra plains. The initial founder group may have been small, as suggested by the very low genetic variability of northern Europeans today (Reich et al., 2001). There then seems to have been rapid growth (perhaps reflected in the spread of the Gravettian culture) with the front of the demographic expansion spreading eastward into the Central Russian Plain and ultimately reaching Siberia and Beringia by the end of the last interglacial approximately 25,000 BP (Goebel, 1999, Pitulko et al., 2004 and Soffer, 1985, p. 238; Soffer et al., 1993).
Thus, when the last ice age began, a single human population occupied a corridor stretching from Europe to Beringia. This inference is supported by several lines of evidence. A Y chromosome study has found that all North Eurasian peoples descend from a common ancestral population dated to about 15,000 BP (Stepanov & Puzyrev, 2000; see also Armour et al., 1996, Santos et al., 1999 and Zerjal et al., 1997). The language families of northern Eurasia, particularly Uralic and Yukaghir and more generally Uralic-Yukaghir, Eskimo-Aleut, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, and Altaic, share deep structural affinities that point to a common origin and not simply to word borrowing (Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994, pp. 97–99; Fortescue, 1998 and Rogers, 1986). Archeological evidence (characteristic lithic technology, grave goods with red ocher, and sites with small shallow basins) also suggests a common cultural tradition throughout Europe and Siberia 20,000 to 15,000 years ago (Goebel, 1999, Haynes, 1980 and Haynes, 1982). Finally, dental and cranial remains from Mal'ta (23,000–20,000 BP) in southern Siberia indicate strong affinities with Upper Paleolithic Europeans (Alexeyev & Gokhman, 1994 and Goebel, 1999).
This Eurasian population would have broken up at the glacial maximum (20,000–15,000 BP). East–west gene flow was severely constricted by the merging of the Fenno-Scandian and Ural icecaps and by the formation of large glacial lakes along the Ob (Rogers, 1986 and Crawford et al., 1997). At the same time, both sides of this ice-age barrier saw sharp declines in human population (Goebel, 1999 and Hahn, 1987). After the glacial maximum, cultural and biological unity continued to disintegrate as part of a trend toward higher population densities, regional diversification, and probably more restricted breeding units (Formicola & Giannecchini, 1999).
As gene flow declined between the two ends of the Eurasian tundra belt, selection pressures would have become more localized. Sexual selection, in particular, would have varied in intensity with regional OSR differences. This may explain why hair- and eye-color diversity arose in Europe but not in Asia—where hair is uniformly black and eyes uniformly brown. The eastern end of the Eurasian tundra belt differed from the western end in two OSR-relevant ways. First, its narrower width constrained herbivore mobility, thus shortening hunting distances and reducing hunting deaths among young men. Male mortality would have further decreased after the glacial maximum: An absence of base camps in the archeological record suggests that residential units were dispersing to exploit a variety of resources with shorter hunting distances (Goebel, 1999, p. 223). Second, the eastern Eurasian tundra had higher latitudes, lower carrying capacity, and a more dispersed human population, thus providing the same environmental conditions that in more recent times have led to female infanticide in the extreme Arctic. These two factors, shorter hunting distances and increased female infanticide, would have resulted in a more balanced OSR and, consequently, less sexual selection to diversify hair and eye color.
Such diversification would have begun in western Eurasia no earlier than 20,000 BP, given the uniform black hair and brown eyes of populations east of the ice-age barrier in eastern Eurasia. If the beginning of human history marks the latest end date, we are left with a maximum timeframe of 14,000 years. This is fast evolutionary change for human pigmentation, which elsewhere has responded more slowly to selection by the natural environment. A full range of environments, from the Arctic to the Tropics, has not caused the Amerindians to differentiate in hair, eye, or skin color, despite their being in the Americas for approximately 15,000 years.
5. Diversification of European hair color
The MC1R gene determines hair color by controlling the production of eumelanin (brown and black pigments) and pheomelanin (red and yellow pigments). It is unusually polymorphic in humans, both in its high number of alleles and in its high ratio of nonsynonymous (phenotypically distinct) to synonymous (phenotypically identical) alleles (Box et al., 1997, Flanagan et al., 2000, Harding et al., 2000, Rana et al., 1999 and Rees, 2000). Whereas most genes have more synonymous alleles than nonsynonymous ones, the reverse is true for human MC1R (Rana et al., 1999).
Nonsynonymous MC1R alleles are distributed differently in European and non-European populations: 11 in Europeans, 5 in Asians, and 1 in Africans (Harding et al., 2000, p. 1355). Furthermore, the Asian alleles differ little in their phenotypic effects. Harding et al. (2000) attribute the high MC1R diversity of Europeans to relaxed selection for dark skin outside the tropical zone. This would account for the redhead alleles, which are linked to skin depigmentation, but not for the other alleles. Relaxed selection also fails to explain the low MC1R diversity of non-tropical Asians. Nonetheless, Harding et al. (2000) advance three arguments for relaxed selection, rather than positive selection, to explain the high MC1R diversity of Europeans. The first argument is that relaxed selection has produced a comparable level of diversity at the β-globin locus. Yet β-globin variants clearly have selective value, as indicated by heterozygote advantage and the short time span (less than 5000 years) over which the β-globin polymorphism has evolved (Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994, pp. 149–152). The second argument is that the ratio of nonsynonymous to synonymous alleles is only 10 to 3 in Eurasia and thus comparable to the ratio of 10 nonsynonymous to 6 synonymous MC1R substitutions that separate humans from chimpanzees. The data in table 1 of their article, however, indicate a ratio of 12 to 3 (2 redhead alleles are excluded because they came from a study that specifically looked for them). In any case, the 10 to 6 ratio separating humans from chimpanzees is hardly a benchmark for neutral selection: Ratios greater than 1 are normally deemed to be evidence of positive selection, and such selection has acted on MC1R in some primate lineages (Mundy & Kelly, 2003). Finally, the third argument against positive selection is that MC1R diversity does not depart significantly from the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, there being neither excess homozygotes nor excess heterozygotes. No such departure, however, would be expected, inasmuch as MC1R heterozygotes exhibit partial effects (Flanagan et al., 2000 and Rees, 2000).
6. Discussion
One might object that sexual selection could not have diversified European hair and eye color because there is no sexual dimorphism in these traits. Had women been selected for a diversity of hair and eye colors, they would now be more diverse in this respect than men are. It should be noted, however, that both hair and eye colors are, at best, weakly sex-linked; hence, selection acting on women should have affected men and women equally until sex-linked alleles had arisen through chance mutations. The original alleles (i.e., the non-sex-linked ones) could then have been selected out, but only if men were somehow disadvantaged by the novel hair and eye colors. For most animals, the disadvantage is an increased risk of predation, which will reduce highly visible colors in the sex that does not need them. For early Europeans, such a disadvantage would have been slight. Even wolves were more likely to be prey than predators (Hoffecker, 2002, pp. 180–183, 225, 241–242).
This being said, some hair and eye colors seem to be sex linked. Blond hair darkens with age more slowly in women than in men (Olivier, 1960, p. 74). Furthermore, prenatal exposure to estrogen, as indicated by digit ratio, appears to be higher in individuals with blond hair or non-brown eyes (Mather et al., unpublished). If a sex difference does indeed exist in these novel hair and eye colors, it seems to be expressed only right after puberty. It was notably absent in the 18-to-38 year olds studied by Mather et al. (unpublished).
Besides diversifying European hair and eye color, sexual selection may have accentuated existing sexual dimorphisms. Several studies have found wider hips, narrower waists, and thicker deposition of subcutaneous fat in women of European descent than in women of other origins (Hrdlička, 1898, Meredith & Spurgeon, 1980 and Nelson & Nelson, 1986). Even before birth, Euro-American fetuses show significantly more sexual dimorphism than do African-American fetuses (Choi & Trotter, 1970). The proximal cause may be lower androgen production than in women of sub-Saharan African descent (Falkner et al., 1999) and higher estrogen production and lower fecal excretion of estrogen than in women of north/east Asian descent (Adlercreutz et al., 1994, Coker et al., 1997, Key et al., 1990, Taioli et al., 1996 and Wang et al., 1991). Prenatal exposure to estrogen, as indicated by digit ratio, may also be higher in European women, albeit with much interpopulation variation (Manning et al., 2000; Manning, J. T. (2003). Personal communication). This variation may reflect a maternal-age effect: digit ratio is higher in Catholic countries like Poland and Spain, where mothers generally bear children in their 20s, than in Germany and Finland, where more mothers bear children in their 30s (Manning et al., 2000).
Sexual selection may have also lightened European skin color. The extreme depigmentation of northern and eastern Europeans deviates markedly from the much weaker north–south gradient in skin color of other human populations (the latter gradient may reflect selection pressures to maintain a critical level of vitamin D synthesis). Yet the geographic extent of this extreme depigmentation does not coincide with a specific pattern of solar radiation: Skies are generally overcast over coastal northwestern Europe and become clearer and typically continental further east. It does coincide, however, with the area where hair and eye color has diversified (Fig. 4). Aside from red hair, the color of the hair and eyes is not genetically linked to skin color (Flanagan et al., 2000 and Sturm et al., 2001). It seems, therefore, that a common selective force has acted simultaneously on skin, hair, and eye color within this geographic area while being absent at similar latitudes in northern Asia and North America (Frost, 1994a and Manning et al., 2004).
Fig. 4. Skin-color depigmentation in Eurasia approximately 500 BP (after Brace, 1973, p. 344, reprinted with permission from Wiley).
If this common selective force were sexual selection, it could have lightened European skin color by acting on an existing sexual dimorphism. Men and women differ in complexion because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939, Frost, 1988, Frost, 2005, Hulse, 1967 and Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and immediately before are actually darker than boys). Investigators also try to exclude tanning by measuring under the arm, where there is less subcutaneous fat and probably less dimorphism in skin color, given that the lightness of a woman's skin correlates with the thickness of her subcutaneous fat (Mazess, 1967). In any event, sexual selection may have targeted this sex difference, as suggested by a cross-cultural male preference for lighter complexioned women and, conversely, by some evidence of a female preference for darker complexioned men (Aoki, 2002, Feinman & Gill, 1978, Frost, 1988, Frost, 1994b, Frost, 2005 and Van den Berghe & Frost, 1986).
Among ancestral Europeans, such selection, even if acting only on women, would have lightened the complexions of both sexes because most skin-color genes are not sex linked. Nonetheless, some of these genes are; thus, there should have been some selective pressure to make European skin color more sexually dimorphic. Yet skin color actually seems to be less sexually dimorphic in light-skinned populations (Relethford et al., 1985). The reason may be a ceiling effect. As ancestral Europeans approached the phenotypic limit of maximum skin depigmentation, further lightening would have become harder to achieve for women than for men, with the result that sexual selection, although acting primarily on women, lightened men more.
In conclusion, sexual selection may have acted on all three color traits in northern and eastern Europe, with hair and eye color being diversified and skin color lightened. This hypothesis is consistent with the narrow timeframe for the evolution of these traits, their geographic distribution, and the large number of alleles involved.
Acknowledgments
I wish to thank Dr. John Thomas Manning, who independently came to similar conclusions as I did, despite his approaching the question from a different academic perspective and drawing on a different body of evidence. This ‘repeatability of conclusions’ is further support for the arguments presented here.
References
Adlercreutz et al., 1994 H. Adlercreutz, S.L. Gorbach, B.R. Goldin, M.N. Woods, J.T. Dwyer and E. Hämäläinen, Estrogen metabolism and excretion in Oriental and Caucasian Women, Journal of the National Cancer Institute 86 (1994), pp. 1076–1082.
Alexeyev & Gokhman, 1994 V.P. Alexeyev and I.I. Gokhman, Skeletal remains of infants from a burial on the Mal'ta Upper Paleolithic site, Homo 45 (1994), pp. 119–126.
Anderson, 1969 W.W. Anderson, Polymorphism resulting from the mating advantage of rare male genotypes, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 64 (1969), pp. 190–197.
Aoki, 2002 K. Aoki, Sexual selection as a cause of human skin colour variation: Darwin's hypothesis revisited, Annals of Human Biology 29 (2002), pp. 589–608.
Armour et al., 1996 J.A.L. Armour, T. Anttinen, C.A. May, E.E. Vega, A. Sajantila, J.R. Kidd, K.K. Kidd, J. Bertranpetit, S. Paabo and A.J. Jeffreys, Minisatellite diversity supports a recent African origin for modern humans, Nature Genetics 13 (1996), pp. 154–160.
Balikci, 1967 A. Balikci, Female infanticide on the Arctic coast, Man 2 (1967), pp. 615–625.
Beals & Hoijer, 1965 R.L. Beals and H. Hoijer, An introduction to anthropology (3rd ed.), Macmillan, New York (1965).
Binford, 1968 S.R. Binford, A structural comparison of disposal of the dead in the Mousterian and the Upper Paleolithic, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 24 (1968), pp. 139–151.
Birket-Smith, 1929 K. Birket-Smith, The Caribou Eskimos. Material and social life and their cultural position. In: K. Rasmussen, Editor, Report of the 5th Thule expedition vol. 5, Nordisk Forlag, Copenhagen (1929), pp. 1921–1924.
Blades, 1999a B.S. Blades, Aurignacian settlement patterns in the Vézère valley, Current Anthropology 40 (1999), pp. 712–719.
Blades, 1999b B.S. Blades, Aurignacian lithic economy and early modern human mobility: New perspectives from classic sites in the Vézère valley of France, Journal of Human Evolution 37 (1999), pp. 91–120.
Box et al., 1997 N.F. Box, J.R. Wyeth, L.E. O'Gorman, N.G. Martin and R.A. Sturm, Characterization of melanocyte stimulating hormone receptor variant alleles in twins with red hair, Human Molecular Genetics 6 (1997), pp. 1891–1897.
Brace, 1973 C.L. Brace, A nonracial approach towards the understanding of human diversity. In: C.L. Brace and J. Metress, Editors, Man in evolutionary perspective, Wiley, New York (1973), pp. 341–363.
Brooks, 2002 R. Brooks, Variation in female mate choice within guppy populations: Population divergence, multiple ornaments and the maintenance of polymorphism, Genetica 116 (2002), pp. 343–358.
Butzer, 1964 K.W. Butzer, Environment and archaeology, Aldine, Chicago (1964).
Caramelli et al., 2003 D. Caramelli, C. Laluez-Fox, C. Vernesi, M. Lari, A. Casoli, F. Mallegni, B. Chiarelli, I. Dupanloup, J. Bertranpetit, G. Barbujani and G. Bertorelle, Evidence for a genetic discontinuity between Neanderthals and 24,000-year-old anatomically modern Europeans, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100 (2003), pp. 6593–6597.
Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994 L.L. Cavalli-Sforza, P. Menozzi and A. Piazza, The history and geography of human genes, Princeton University Press, Princeton (1994).
Choi & Trotter, 1970 S.C. Choi and M.A. Trotter, Statistical study of the multivariate structure and race–sex differences of American White and Negro fetal skeletons, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 33 (1970), pp. 307–312.
Coker et al., 1997 A.L. Coker, M.M. Crane, R.P. Sticca and D.W. Sepkovic, Re: Ethnic differences in estrogen metabolism in healthy women, Journal of the National Cancer Institute 89 (1997), pp. 89–90.
Crawford et al., 1997 M.H. Crawford, J.T. Williams and R. Duggirala, Genetic structure of the indigenous populations of Siberia, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 104 (1997), pp. 177–192.
Dahlberg & Carbonell, 1961 A.A. Dahlberg and V.M. Carbonell, The dentition of the Magdalenian female from Cap Blanc, France, Man 61 (1961), pp. 49–50.
Dickson, 1990 D.B. Dickson, The dawn of belief. Religion in the upper Paleolithic of Southwestern Europe, University of Arizona Press, Tucson (1990).
Dupanloup et al., 2003 I. Dupanloup, L. Pereira, G. Bertorelle, F. Calafell, M.J. Prata, A. Amorim and G. Barbujani, A recent shift from polygyny to monogamy in humans is suggested by the analysis of worldwide Y-chromosome diversity, Journal of Molecular Evolution 57 (2003), pp. 85–97.
Edwards & Duntley, 1939 E.A. Edwards and S.Q. Duntley, The pigments and color of living human skin, American Journal of Anatomy 65 (1939), pp. 1–33.
Eiberg & Mohr, 1987 H. Eiberg and J. Mohr, Major genes of eye color and hair color linked to LU and SE, Clinical Genetics 31 (1987), pp. 186–191.
Ellis, 1928 H. Ellis, Studies in the psychology of sex, Sexual selection in man vol. IV, F.A. Davis Company, Philadelphia (1928).
Endler, 1980 J.A. Endler, Natural selection on color patterns in Poecilia reticulata, Evolution 34 (1980), pp. 76–91.
Endler, 1991 J.A. Endler, Variation in the appearance of guppy color patterns to guppies and their predators under different visual conditions, Vision Research 31 (1991), pp. 587–608.
Falkner et al., 1999 B. Falkner, K. Sherif, A. Sumner and H. Kushner, Hyperinsulinism and sex hormones in young adult African Americans, Metabolism, Clinical and Experimental 48 (1999), pp. 107–112.
Farr, 1980 J.A. Farr, Social behavior patterns as determinants of reproductive success in the guppy Poecilia reticulata Peters (Pisces: Poeciliidae), Behaviour 74 (1980), pp. 38–91.
Feinman & Gill, 1978 S. Feinman and G.W. Gill, Sex differences in physical attractiveness preferences, Journal of Social Psychology 105 (1978), pp. 43–52.
Flanagan et al., 2000 N. Flanagan, E. Healy, A. Ray, S. Philips, C. Todd, I.J. Jackson, M.A. Birch-Machin and J.L. Rees, Pleiotropic effects of the melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R) gene on human pigmentation, Human Molecular Genetics 9 (2000), pp. 2531–2537.
Formicola & Giannecchini, 1999 V. Formicola and M. Giannecchini, Evolutionary trends of stature in upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europe, Journal of Human Evolution 36 (1999), pp. 319–333.
Fortescue, 1998 M.D. Fortescue, Language relations across Bering strait. Reappraising the archaeological and linguistic evidence, Cassell, London (1998).
Frost, 1988 P. Frost, Human skin color: A possible relationship between its sexual dimorphism and its social perception, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 32 (1988), pp. 38–58.
Frost, 1994a P. Frost, Geographic distribution of human skin colour: A selective compromise between natural selection and sexual selection?, Human Evolution 9 (1994), pp. 141–153.
Frost, 1994b P. Frost, Preference for darker faces in photographs at different phases of the menstrual cycle: Preliminary assessment of evidence for a hormonal relationship, Perceptual and Motor Skills 79 (1994), pp. 507–514.
Frost, 2005 P. Frost, Fair women, dark men. The forgotten roots of color prejudice, Cybereditions, Christchurch, New Zealand (2005).
Goebel, 1999 T. Goebel, Pleistocene human colonization of Siberia and peopling of the Americas: An ecological approach, Evolutionary Anthropology 8 (1999), pp. 208–227.
Grant et al., 1974 B. Grant, A. Snyder and S.F. Glessner, Frequency-dependent mate selection in Mormoniella vitripennis, Evolution 28 (1974), pp. 259–264.
Hahn, 1987 J. Hahn, Aurignacian and Gravettian settlement patterns in Central Europe. In: O. Soffer, Editor, The Pleistocene old world, Plenum, New York (1987), pp. 251–261.
Hamilton & Zuk, 1982 W.D. Hamilton and M. Zuk, Heritable true fitness and bright birds: A role for parasites?, Science 218 (1982), pp. 384–386.
Harding et al., 2000 R.M. Harding, E. Healy, A.J. Ray, N.S. Ellis, N. Flanagan, C. Todd, C. Dixon, A. Sajantila, I.J. Jackson, M.A. Birch-Machin and J.L. Rees, Evidence for variable selective pressures at MC1R, American Journal of Human Genetics 66 (2000), pp. 1351–1361.
Harrold, 1980 F.B. Harrold, A comparative analysis of Eurasian Paleolithic burials, World Archaeology 12 (1980), pp. 195–211.
Haynes, 1980 C.V. Haynes, The Clovis culture, Canadian Journal of Anthropology 1 (1980), pp. 115–121.
Haynes, 1982 C.V. Haynes, Were Clovis progenitors in Beringia?. In: D.M. Hopkins, Editor, Paleoecology of Beringia, Academic Press, New York (1982), pp. 383–398.
Hodge, ([1905]1959) F.W. Hodge, Handbook of American Indians north of Mexico. Part 1, Pageant, New York ([1905]1959).
Hoffecker, 2002 J.F. Hoffecker, Desolate landscapes. Ice-age settlement in Eastern Europe, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick (2002).
Howell, 1979 N. Howell, Demography of the Dobe !Kung, Academic Press, New York (1979).
Hrdlička, 1898 A. Hrdlička, Physical differences between white and colored children, American Anthropologist 11 (1898), pp. 347–350.
Hughes et al., 1999 K.A. Hughes, L. Du, F.H. Rodd and D.N. Reznick, Familiarity leads to female mate preference for novel males in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata, Animal Behaviour 58 (1999), pp. 907–916.
Hulse, 1967 F.S. Hulse, Selection for skin color among the Japanese, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 27 (1967), pp. 143–156.
Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000 N.G. Jablonski and G. Chaplin, The evolution of human skin coloration, Journal of Human Evolution 39 (2000), pp. 57–106.
Kelly, 1955 R.L. Kelly, The foraging spectrum. Diversity in hunter-gatherer lifeways, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington (1955).
Key et al., 1990 T.J.A. Key, J. Chen, D.Y. Wang, M.C. Pike and J. Boreham, Sex hormones in women in rural China and in Britain, British Journal of Cancer 62 (1990), pp. 631–636.
Kirkpatrick, 1987 M. Kirkpatrick, Sexual selection by female choice in polygynous animals, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 18 (1987), pp. 43–70.
Kjellström, 1973 R. Kjellström, Eskimo marriage. An account of traditional Eskimo courtship and marriage, Nordiska Museets Handlingar 80, Lund (1973).
Kozlowski & Sachse-Kozlowska, 1995 S.K. Kozlowski and E. Sachse-Kozlowska, Magdalenian family from the Maszycka Cave, Jahrbuch der Römisch Germanischen Zentral Museums Mainz 40 (1995), pp. 115–205.
Krings et al., 1999 M. Krings, H. Geisert, R.W. Schmitz, H. Krainitzki and S. Pääbo, DNA sequence of the mitochondrial hypervariable region II from the Neanderthal type specimen, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 96 (1999), pp. 5581–5585.
Krupnik, 1985 I.I. Krupnik, The male–female ratio in certain traditional populations of the Siberian Arctic, Inuit Studies 9 (1985), pp. 115–140.
Lank, 2002 D.B. Lank, Diverse processes maintain plumage polymorphisms in birds, Journal of Avian Biology 33 (2002), pp. 327–330.
Lummaa et al., 1998 V. Lummaa, J. Merila and A. Kause, Adaptive sex ratio variation in pre-industrial human (Homo sapiens) populations?, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B 265 (1998), pp. 563–568.
Mallegni & Fabbri, 1995 F. Mallegni and P.F. Fabbri, The human skeletal remains from the Upper Paleolithic burials found in Romito Cave (Papasidero, Cosenza, Italy), Bulletin et Mémoires de la Société d'Anthropologie de Paris, n.s 7 (1995), pp. 99–137.
Manning, 1979 A. Manning, An introduction to animal behaviour, Edward Arnold, London (1979).
Manning et al., 2000 J.T. Manning, L. Barley, I. Lewis-Jones, J. Walton, R.L. Trivers, R. Thornhill, D. Singh, P. Rhode, T. Bereckzei, P. Henzi, M. Soler and A. Sved, The 2nd to 4th digit ratio, sexual dimorphism, population differences and reproductive success: Evidence for sexually antagonistic genes, Evolution and Human Behavior 21 (2000), pp. 163–183.
Manning et al., 2004 J.T. Manning, P.E. Bundred and F.M. Mather, Second to fourth digit ratio, sexual selection, and skin colour, Evolution and Human Behavior 25 (2004), pp. 38–50.
Martin, 1974 M.K. Martin, The foraging adaptation—Uniformity or diversity?, Addison-Wesley Module in anthropology 56, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass (1974).
Mason et al., 1994 S.L.R. Mason, J.G. Hather and G.C. Hillman, Preliminary investigation of the plant macro-remains from Dolní Věstonice II, and its implications for the role of plant foods in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Europe, Antiquity 68 (1994), pp. 48–57.
Mather et al., unpublished Mather, F., Manning, J.T., Bundred, P.E. (unpublished). 2nd to 4th digit ratio, hair and eye colour in Caucasians: Evidence for blond hair as a correlate of high prenatal oestrogen.
Mazess, 1967 R.B. Mazess, Skin color in Bahamian Negroes, Human Biology 39 (1967), pp. 145–154.
Mellars, 1985 P.A. Mellars, The ecological basis of social complexity in the Upper Paleolithic of Southwestern France. In: T.D. Price and J.A. Brown, Editors, Prehistoric hunter-gatherers. The emergence of cultural complexity, Academic Press, Orlando (1985), pp. 271–297.
Meredith & Spurgeon, 1980 H.V. Meredith and J.H. Spurgeon, Somatic comparisons at age 9 years for South Carolina White Girls and girls of other ethnic groups, Human Biology 52 (1980), pp. 401–411.
Muggleton, 1979 J. Muggleton, Non-random mating in wild populations of polymorphic Adalia Bipunctata, Heredity 42 (1979), pp. 57–65.
Mundy & Kelly, 2003 N.I. Mundy and J. Kelly, Evolution of a pigmentation gene, the melanocortin-1 receptor, in primates, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121 (2003), pp. 67–80.
Nelson & Nelson, 1986 J.K. Nelson and K.R. Nelson, Skinfold profiles of Black and White boys and girls ages 11–13, Human Biology 58 (1986), pp. 379–390.
Nordenskiold, 1882 A.E. Nordenskiold, The voyage of the Vega round Asia and Europe, with a historical review of previous journeys along the north coast of the old world, Macmillan & Co., New York (1882).
Remaining references in comments.
Posted by J Richards on Monday, February 27, 2006 at 11:26 PM in Anthropology, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Race realism
Comments (859) | Tell a friend
Comments:
Page 2 of 9 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last »
Posted by J Richards on May 04, 2006, 04:28 AM | #
Raj,
I went through some of the pages in the mega-forum that you linked to. The women pointed out by Malcolm were included and some of the newer women that I come across did not look better than those pointed out by Malcolm, but then I didn’t go through the 51 pages of the forum. Why don’t you pick out the ones that are comparable to attractive Nordic women and then I will see how these women look.
Indian girl,
It is not necessary to address the jawline, nose shape or racial elements of the facial features of a good looking woman. However, the reason I have addressed these features is because Malcolm continues to insist that South Asians are classified as Caucasians, and can’t seem to tell that most Indian women on this page don’t look Caucasoid.
Anyway, regarding the women that you have pointed out, I don’t like any of the faces except for the face of MadhuBala. All the other women that you have pointed out have discernable Mongoloid and/or aboriginal elements in their faces, although this is not clear in some of the pictures that you have posted (e.g., Bipasha Basu, Rajshree Thakur, Sonal Chauhan). Sonal Chauhan looks masculinized and her photo is overexposed, making it difficult to make out her features in the picture that you linked to. I searched for pictures of Sonal Chauhan and found clearer pictures that show her ethnic, part-Mongoloid features that are clear in side view or at an angle, and didn’t like her features much. If Malcolm had pointed out MadhuBala, I would have readily acknowledged the attractiveness of her face and wouldn’t have bothered comparing her to an attractive Nordic woman, though it would be possible to find a Nordic woman who looks better than her.
Regarding the ancestry of Diya Mirza, I had no idea that she had a German father, and you are of course right that she could have inherited her jaw structure from her white father, but I can’t tell because I don’t know how her parents look like. I hadn’t even heard of her before Malcolm pointed her out, but Diya’s ancestry certainly doesn’t help Malcolm’s case. Assuming that Diya’s mother is at least half European, which should not be unusual for upper caste Indians/equivalent, Diya is mostly European yet has ethnic features that make her facial features deviate from Nordic fineness. If some of the other women pointed out by Malcolm have a white parent, then let me know. For instance, Katrina Kaif would be a possible candidate for having a white parent.
Malcolm A,
Of course genetic evidence supports a Caucasoid race inclusive of both Nordic Aryans and Indo Aryans, but the Indo Aryans existed a long time ago and absorbed too many non-Caucasoid racial elements to remain Caucasoid anymore. I have cited enough evidence, but where is your evidence for classifying most present-day South Asians as Caucasoid, i.e., part of the same race that whites belong to?
Since you have mentioned Cavalli-Sforza’s map on the cover of his book, this map assigned green color to Europeans and light blue to the part of the world in between Europids and Mongoloids (this type of blending is evident in Northernmost Scandinavia; Central, West and South Asia). Therefore, I don’t see how Cavalli-Sforza’s data classify South Asians and Europeans as part of the same race.
Another way of looking at the issue is to consider a profile of a South Asian from DNAPrint Genomics.
In reference to the figure above, the question is what is the cutoff of non-Caucasoid admixture that you will be willing to accept beyond which one ceases to be a Caucasoid?
Your statement that clustering does not prove anything because the traits examined have to be uniform within groups shows ignorance of both cluster analysis and the apportionment of variability within the species, whereby the majority of overall variation is within groups. Yet, this does not pose any problem for racial classification because there is a correlation structure to the variation. I recommend that you read Edward’s debunking of Lewontin’s fallacy in BioEssays [Volume 25, Issue 8, Date: August 2003, Pages: 798-801].
Regarding Cavalli-Sforza, the graph showing the grouping of humans into 4 quadrants using the first two principal components (based on principal components analysis) as the axes was not based on cluster analysis, and this is what I mentioned in my previous comment, although Cavalli-Sforza has undoubtedly performed various analyses on his data, including cluster analyses, which I was not aware of until now.
You have mentioned that the scientific community does not recognize a white race. This is obviously true since the scientific community does not recognize any human races, but what does evidence say? See the Rosenberg et al. study cited above for proof of a European racial cluster. Let me see you cite evidence that South Asians belong to the same racial cluster. I have already pointed out that there is no present evidence for a South Asian racial cluster based on randomly selected neutral DNA markers and South Asians are not assigned a race.
I am not being biased by saying that the celebrities selected by you are nowhere as good looking as the women selected by me; it is obvious which of the women in the comparisons are better looking. Besides, the celebrity status of the women is irrelevant; what matters is how they look.
I can understand that Japanese, Saudi or white men in general could not get close to elite Hindu families, but non-white men can also generally not get close to attractive Nordic women, yet when they prefer women from other races, they show a preference for Nordic women rather than South Asian women, including elite South Asian women.
Yes, Miss World Organization has selected Nordic winners, who are not necessarily particularly good looking, but this doesn’t mean that the Miss World contest is about beauty; just look at the contestants in general.
Regarding Aishwarya Rai’s face pic that you requested me to post, yes she is staring straight at the camera, but her face is pointed downward and her picture is therefore obscure.
So you say that at age 20 Aishwarya Rai did not have a shapely figure, but now she does. Well, the Nordic woman that I have compared her physique to is about age 20 and is shapely. On the other hand, Aishwarya has gained flab. Her hips have gained fat and her waist has become broader, too. Thus, she has not acquired the shape of the Nordic woman and is clearly incapable of acquiring the Nordic’s shape because she simply doesn’t have the genetics.
You have to be a bizarre man to believe that there is anything peasant-like or lower class about a shapely butt in women; heterosexual men of all socioeconomic classes prefer a shapely butt on a woman rather than the flat butt of Aishwarya Rai; it is a different matter if you are a sodomite. The Nordic woman that I have compared Aishwarya with does not have Hottentot butts; she has just the right kind of butt for a woman.
Why should I bother with Kate Beckinsale or Angelina (Angelina who?) when the white woman that I have compared Urmila Matondkar to beats Urmila hands down in the physique department?
Now you have posted links to the pictures of another woman with a hooked nose and lots of Mongoloid ancestry—Manisha Koirala—and have called her Indo-Aryan! I don’t know what is wrong with your perception, but her looks are easily beaten by a Nordic woman. Besides, what is up with all the hook-nosed women? Do you like hooked noses?
Posted by IndianGirl on May 04, 2006, 04:44 AM | #
Assuming that Diya’s mother is at least half European, which should not be unusual for upper caste Indians/equivalent Diya is mostly European yet has ethnic features that make her facial features deviate from Nordic fineness. If some of the other women pointed out by Malcolm have a white parent, then let me know. For instance, Katrina Kaif would be a possible candidate for having a white parent.
Yes, I think Katrina has a white parent. Celina Jaitely also had an Afghan mother.
But there are some white/Indian mixes where the mixture isn’t too noticeable. Even I thought that Diya and Celina were fully Indian.
Here are some Indians with immediate white blood.
Padma Lakshmi -Could easily pass for a full Indian. She is darker in real life than she appears in pictures.
Lara Dutta (who is 25% white). She does have somewhat of a Mongloid look. She looks like someone from the Eastern/North-Eastern part of India
Dino Morea
Posted by IndianGirl on May 04, 2006, 04:48 AM | #
Hey J.R.
I guess Padma Lakshmi isn’t half-white. Some of her biographies say that she a pure South Indian, and other sites claim that she has a white mother.
I think I’m going to believe that she’s a full Indian. That woman doesn’t look like she has any white in her, or I could be wrong.
A lot of people lie about their ethnicity anyway.
Posted by James Bowery on May 04, 2006, 07:18 AM | #
Is there any way to objectively measure beauty?
Posted by James Bowery on May 05, 2006, 12:47 AM | #
I wonder if this research is real:
Posted by James Bowery on May 05, 2006, 01:01 AM | #
Interesting output after I took the test on comparative attractiveness:
Thank you for participating in this experiment.
There is some evidence that the more average a face looks, the more attractive it is perceived to be. In 1994, however, David Perrett and colleagues showed that exaggerating certain traits away from average makes a face even more attractive.
We are looking at how preferences for these traits differ when the starting attractiveness of the faces or the difference between the faces is changed.
View more extensive feedback about this experiment.
On average, people had a 83% preference strength for the ‘more attractive’ images. You had a 83% preference strength.
Now I’m wondering what the variance is…
Posted by Malcolm A on May 05, 2006, 01:35 AM | #
Hi J.R.
1. Of course genetic evidence supports a Caucasoid race inclusive of both Nordic Aryans and Indo Aryans, but the Indo Aryans existed a long time ago and absorbed too many non-Caucasoid racial elements to remain Caucasoid anymore. I have cited enough evidence, but where is your
evidence for classifying most present-day South Asians as Caucasoid ?
The most recent classification of Causcasoids follows.
I. Caucasoid or Europid Subspecies (Geographic distribution centered in the Caucasus mountains)
A. Mediterranid race
1. Iberid subrace (West Mediterranean - Spain etc)
2. Pontid subrace (East Mediterranean or Ukraine, Romania
3. Dinaric Mediterraneans (Residual mixed Mediterranids)
4. Saharid subrace ( South Mediterranean Algeria & Libya)
5. Arabid subrace (Arabia, from Egypt to Syria etc)
B. Dinaric race (predominant in western Balkans )
C. Alpine race (Luxembourg, primary in Bavaria & Bohemia)
D. Ladogan race (indigenous to Russia; Lappish subrace )
E. Nordish/c race (subraces in the British Isles, Scandinavia)
F. Armenid race (in Armenia,Syria, Lebanon etc)
G. Turanid race (hybridized w/ Mongoloids; Hungary &Turkey)
H. Irano-Afghan race (Iran,Afghanistan, Iraq, 25% in Turkey)
I. Indic or Nordindid race (Pakistan and northern India)
J. Dravidic race (India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka [Ceylon]
This should indicate how the classification works as of now. I am sure you will argue that this is outdated ( i.e Lewontin’ etc ). I have contacted some of my colleagues and they are certain that the above is the most recent human race classification available. So there is the answer to your conundrum.
2.Since you have mentioned Cavalli-Sforza’s map on the cover of his book, this map assigned green color to Europeans and light blue to the part of the world in between Europids and Mongoloids (this type of blending is evident in Northernmost Scandinavia; Central, West and South Asia). Therefore, I don’t see how Cavalli-Sforza’s data classify South Asians and Europeans as part of the same race.
You are confusing races and sub-races. There are only 3 major biological races and Caucasoid is one of them. As the above classification shows both whites and Indians fall into this race (under Caucasoid see E and I sub-races ) Cavalli’s book cover shows clustering of different sub-races.
The excerpt cited by me in the earlier post, i.e.
“ The color map of the world shows......it does show the unity of the other Caucasoids from Europe,....... and in the West, South and much of Central Asia...”
was intended to indicate to you that West, South and Central Asia has caucasoids according to Cavalli’s own analysis. South Asia = India.
Also here are some excerpts from Cavallis other works,
b) ...Any classification of races is arbitrary, imperfect, and difficult. Yet anyone can see that there are certain relatively clear differences between a typical Caucasoid and a typical Mongoloid or a typical Negroid....
c) ...Caucasians are spread over Europe and in Southwest Asia as far as India, where there is a relatively gradual transition with Easterners....
d)...The correlation between linguistic and biological traits does tend to hold, for instance, among Caucasians. Most Caucasians who inhabit Europe and parts of Asia today speak languages of the Indo-European group....
e) ...A fairly natural classification, which follows geographic boundaries, is that between European and extra-European Caucasians..
Ref : W.F. Bodmer and L.L. Cavalli-Sforza, 1976. Genetics, Evolution, and Man. WH Freeman and Company, San Francisco. pp.559-574
[ Note : note the words in bold type Cauacsoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, Indo -European, extra -European caucasian etc ]
3.Another way of looking at the issue is to consider a fairly typical profile of a South Asian from DNAPrint Genomics. In reference to the figure above, the question is what is the cutoff of non- Caucasoid admixture that you will be willing to accept beyond which one ceases to be a Caucasoid?
The typical South Asian you have shown is a Caucasoid. But of a different sub-race than “Nordic’. Please do NOT confuse differences between sub-races as those between races.
4. Your statement that clustering does not prove anything because the traits examined have to be uniform within groups shows ignorance of both cluster analysis and the apportionment of variability within the pecies, whereby the majority of overall variation is within groups. Yet, this does not pose any problem for racial classification because there is a correlation structure to the variation;
You misunderstood me again. I am reposting the excerpt.
Cluster analysis is an exploratary data analysis tool for solving classification problems. It’s objective is to sort cases (people, things, events etc) into groups....Cluster analysis is thus a tool of discovery...
My intention in posting the above review was to indicate that Cluster analysis is primarily an EXPLORATORY technique and a TOOL OF DISCOVERY & not a DEFINITIVE one. I have done some clustering myself. It helps you form an idea. Does not allow you to determine whether differences are significant or NOT.
5. I recommend that you read Edward’s debunking of Lewontin’s fallacy in BioEssays…
Lewontin argued that, as variation observed within groups for a single locus allele ( ~85%), was larger than variation between groups (~15%) (cline studies), the race concept does not hold. Edwards later provided evidence that some of lewontin ‘s assumptions weren’t correct either. Scientists later came to accept that low (Sewell Wright’s) Fst statistic (measures genetic distance) did not necessarily debunk race. Any positive Fst is evidence of subgroups (rejects the null hypothesis that all groups are genetically indistinguishable).
This was what Lewontin’s fallacy article was all about and I’ve read it some years ago.
However, my point in discussing within and between variance was in regards to ANOVA and not about clustering. What I intended to point out was that eye color, hair color etc., are qualitative and do not lend themselves to such variance analyses unless coding is used ( A good contingency Table/ chi sq., study maybe ). But then that does not prove anything. Also, I already agreed that skull measurement studies etc., are the best and would be much more preferable to hair color etc ( re earleir post ) and it is this type of study that is lacking.
6. Regarding Cavalli-Sforza, the graph showing the grouping of humans into 4 quadrants using the first two principal components (based on principal components analysis) as the axes was not based on cluster analysis, and this is what I mentioned in my previous comment, although Cavalli- Sforza has undoubtedly performed various analyses on his data, including cluster analyses, which I was not aware of until now.
Well, now you know. Most of his conclusions were based on cluster analysis and he came under some criticism for that, though most of his findings were pretty sound as he just used taxonomic clustering to create dendrograms showing eucleadian and other distances between races and sub races. Most correlation figures were given to relate the groups for ranking ( Pearsons Product Moment Coeff (r ( jk)] etc : by far the most useful. Estimates the resemblance between 2 OTUs and takes into account mismatches as well as matches ( Can also be used for multi state characters ).
7.You have mentioned that the scientific community does not recognize a white race. This is obviously true since the scientific community does not recognize any human races, but what does evidence say? Seethe Rosenberg et al. study cited above for proof of a European racial cluster. Let me see you cite evidence that South Asians belong to the same racial cluster. I have already pointed out that there is no present evidence for a South Asian racial cluster based on randomly selected neutral DNA markers and South Asians are not assigned a race.
Again you are confusing ‘race’ with ‘sub-race.’ Does a european race or sub-race exist ? Could be ( eg; Nordic ). Europe has mostly Caucasoids only. As for S. Asian cluster it would be impossible as S. Asia has Negroids, Mongoloids and Caucasoids. So showing all those belong to one cluster would not be possible.
Part two of reply follows…
Posted by Malcolm A on May 05, 2006, 01:39 AM | #
Hi JR
Here is the second part
8.I am not being biased by saying that the celebrities selected by you are nowhere as good looking as the women selected by me; it is obvious which of the women in the comparisons are better looking. Besides, thecelebrity status of the women is irrelevant; what matters is how they look.
First you said celebrities are not particularly good looking ( ie; Catherine Zeta Jones ) but get their pic’s posted nonetheless because they are famous. I pointed out that all women posted by you were celebrities. Your second statement that those posted by you are BETTER looking only reinforces my statement that you tend to be biased, when in fact it is ‘you said; I said’ ( vote of 1 each ) with no way to decide.
9. I can understand that Japanese, Saudi or white men in general could not get close to elite Hindu families, but non-white men can also generally not get close to attractive Nordic women, yet when they prefer women from other races, they show a preference for Nordic women rather than South Asian women, including elite South Asian women
Nowhere did I say that Indian men can get close to our women easliy. It was you who brought up the subject by saying Japs ( Indians are way superior to Japs etc. in looks ) do not prefer Indian women. I responded that Indian masses are not that good looking, and that the elite who are good looking are not accessible. I can assure you that elite Indians do NOT care for whites OR think highly of us, the way we imagine they do. For most of them caste is the be all and end all.
10. Yes, Miss World Organization has selected Nordic winners, who are not necessarily particularly good looking, but this doesn’t mean that the Miss World contest is about beauty; just look at the contestants in general. Regarding Aishwarya Rai’s face pic that you requested me to post, yes she is staring straight at the camera, but her face is pointed downward and her picture is therefore obscure.So you say that at age 20 Aishwarya Rai did not have a shapely figure, but now she does. Well, the Nordic woman that I have compared her physique to is about age 20 and is shapely. On the other hand, Aishwarya has gained flab. Her hips have gained fat and her waist has become broader, too. Thus, she has not acquired the shape of the Nordic woman and is clearly incapable of acquiring the Nordic’s shape because she simply doesn’t have the genetics.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. According to you, all Miss World contestants are average or below average ! Well, if Nordic winners are not that good looking then so are the non-Nordics. So you can just imagine the non-nordic beauties ( who do not contest ). Stunning wouldn’t they be ?
Maybe you could post a Nordic in a similar posture and then compare w/ Ash. Our women (Nordic ) that you posted so far are no match for most of the Indians I have posted ( Diya Mirza (Miss Asia Pacific ), Celina ( Miss Universe Runner up, Ash (Miss world ) by any standards. Also they (the Nordics) all look the same with no variablitly or range (inbred ), like the Indians, who come from a wider gene pool. Indians show a wider range of looks that suits a range of tastes in skin color, facial type, height, features etc as they all come from an Indo Aryan Caucasoid base topped up by a very fine genetic contribution form other races which enhances their exotic beauty. Again the median is the preferred . Also any neutral observer can see that these women ( both Nordic and Indian ) are Caucasoids, and NOT either Mongoloids or Negroids.
The Nordic gal you have posted against Urmila is one of the worst looking I have seen and I know many Nordics who can beat her hands down. Notice her red nose, freckles, wide face and the toothy grin. There are many very beautiful Nordics out there and by trying to go too ethnic and post British/Euro based women you are missing out on a lot of American Nordics who are much more glamarous and beautiful. Try to dig up some better women. Angelina, as in Jolie ( I am sure you know her -the most beautifu woman in the world -People Mag )
Manisha is an Indo Aryan Nepali. Not Tibetan Nepali. So a little Mongo Admixture is there. But you ( like old Andrew Lloyd ) were intimidated enough by her so as NOT to post my links !
If you are so enamored with straight noses, I can post a 1000 Indian beauties with straight pointed noses. Madhubala
( Mumtaz Jehan Delavi) was called Venus of Bollywood in the ‘50s according to my wife. Diya , Katrina, Dino Morea etc are all some Anglo genes in them. But then that’s what being Indian is all about !
Here is Mallika Sherawat who was called the next Pamela Anderson (sex appeal) by Howard Stern and offered a centerfold spread by Playboy. Jackie Chan who has openly declared that Indian women are the most beautiful, wanted to cast one in his MYTH flick, and chose Mallika Sherawat ( who is not so highly ranked in Bollywood.. Jackie wasn’t influential enough to get the top stars I guess ) who appeared at Cannes with him.
http://movies.indiainfo.com/gallery/albums/album177-Mallika-Sherawat/Mallika_Sherawat5.jpg
http://www.sulekha.com/Movies/wallpapers/Mallika Sherawat/800-600/MAL20050701-4_800-600.jpg
http://www.sulekha.com/Movies/wallpapers/Mallika Sherawat/800-600/MS20050504-7_800-600.jpg
Happy hunting.
Cheers
Posted by Malcolm A on May 05, 2006, 01:58 AM | #
Hi James B.,
Is there any way to objectively measure beauty?
In 2001? a beauty products corporation conducted a worldwide survey where random samples of all races were questioned for their preferences of various facial features and characteristics, and the most preferable of these features were used to create a computer graphics model considered the global face of beauty for women.
And this global face of beauty belonged to Saira Mohan a mixed descent ( Indian + Irish ) caucasian model from Canada. Proving your point that the average or median facial features with a little quirk tend to be the most attractive. This is why the Indian subcon and Latino women lead in beauty statistics.
Cheers.
Posted by IndianGirl on May 05, 2006, 03:57 AM | #
I can assure you that elite Indians do NOT care for whites OR think highly of us, the way we imagine they do. For most of them caste is the be all and end all.
Hi Malcolm,
What do you mean by “elite?” Indians that are rich or Indians that are of high-caste descent?
My mom hails from a respectable high-caste that has a glorious history of courageness, chivalry and honor (The Rajputs). BUT, her family is pretty darn poor. They aren’t the poorest of the bunch, but they can be considered poor in comparison to middle-caste families from Mumbai and Delhi.
The Rajputs originated in Rajasthan, but my mom’s family lives in the backward North Indian state of UP. So, not all high-caste people are rich and not all middle-caste/low-caste people are poor. My mom didn’t even have any shoes to wear to school.
But you know what? She was known as one of the prettiest girls in her school. The rich Indian boys drooled over her.
Rajput women have been historically known for their beauty in India, but that’s not to say that only Rajputs are pretty or that there are no ugly Rajputs. Gayatri Devi, the woman that you mentioned, is of Rajput descent. 
Rajputs are theorized to have a lot of Scythian ancestry, but a lot of Rajputs like to think of themselves as native Indians.
To be honest, I have seen servant girls and poor village girls who I found to be delicately attractive. Some even have light eyes. Of course, these girls are of high-caste descent. It’s just that they don’t have much money, which is why they are poor.
If you mean “rich” when you talk about elite families, I don’t fully agree that the prettiest girls come from the richest families. There are some who are really pretty, but some aren’t pretty at all. It really depends.
My dad’s family is filthy rich, but he is of a lower-caste than my mom. But, I think my mom’s family has prettier girls (even though they are poor, lol). A lot of the rich Mumbaikers get fat from eating too much, or maybe it’s just from what I’ve seen? Most of the women in my dad’s family are overweight and don’t take care of themselves. You would think that they would watch their looks, because they have more money and they live in a cosmopolitan city.
Posted by James Bowery on May 05, 2006, 07:18 AM | #
And this global face of beauty belonged to Saira Mohan a mixed descent ( Indian + Irish ) caucasian model from Canada. Proving your point that the average or median facial features with a little quirk tend to be the most attractive. This is why the Indian subcon and Latino women lead in beauty statistics.
Well, first of all, it wasn’t my point—I was reporting what they said. Secondly, looking for a single global standard of beauty is different from coming up with an operational definition of beauty.
For example, in the study to which I subjected my self, all the faces were very much the same. I was amazed actually that they conducted a supposedly scientific study of beauty with the apparent presumption that it is a simple “hill climbing” optimization problem. No one is that stupid in real operational systems.
Posted by Lurker on May 05, 2006, 09:58 AM | #
Indiangirl - isnt it likely that these poor, pretty high-caste girls will, on average, get to marry into money though? Like your mother in fact.
Posted by J Richards on May 06, 2006, 01:42 AM | #
James,
There are objective correlates of beauty. See the following literature review and meta-analysis.
Rhodes G. The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annu Rev Psychol. 2006;57:199-226.
This paper is sound except for its mention of research on the attractiveness of mixed-race people, which I have previously critiqued.
On the other hand, there is also some truth to the adage that beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. Therefore, beauty cannot be measured 100% objectively.
Thus, the debate that I am having with Malcolm over attractiveness is objective in the sense of racial elements in the face and degree of fineness of facial features, but he and I cannot see eye to eye because our preferences are oriented in different directions.
The website that you have linked to does mention some decent research.
Malcolm A,
Your classification of Caucasoid races is citation-less and has obvious roots in 19th century anthropology. Do you have any modern citations that show European populations to be divided into races? I am not talking about a position statement, but evidence, that supports races among whites? And, do you have citations that support the concept of sub-races? There is a valid concept of race or subspecies in taxonomy, but I have not heard of sub-sub-species or sub-race as part of the taxonomical literature.
The citation from Cavalli-Sforza that you have mentioned is 30 years old. More recently, Cavalli-Sforza has denied the existence of races, obviously to not have his funding dry up. Besides, saying that Caucasians are spread out as far as India is not to say that Indians are a Caucasoid people, but simply implies that some Caucasoids are found in India, and Cavalli-Sforza has mentioned that there is a transition to Easterners in India.
More importantly, if you are a man of science, you should know the difference between an argument by authority (so and so says this….) and an argument by evidence; the former being unacceptable. Therefore, where are your citations involving evidence? You have not cited any proof of there being only 3 major biological races.
I can cite modern genetic evidence for at least 5 races (all major population groupings) among humans (Europeans, black Africans, East Asians, Melanesian/Australian, Native American):
Nei, M. and A. K. Roychoudhury (1993). “Evolutionary relationships of human populations on a global scale.” Mol Biol Evol 10(5): 927-43.
Bowcock, A. M., A. Ruiz-Linares, et al. (1994). “High resolution of human evolutionary trees with polymorphic microsatellites.” Nature 368(6470): 455-7.
Rosenberg, N. A., J. K. Pritchard, et al. (2002). “Genetic structure of human populations.” Science 298(5602): 2381-5.
Rosenberg, N. A., S. Mahajan, et al. (2005). “Clines, Clusters, and the Effect of Study Design on the Inference of Human Population Structure.” PLoS Genet 1(6): e70.
Some populations not included in the 5 races are mixed groups—such as South Asians—and are not assigned a race because of the failure of such designation to satisfy phylogeographic criteria for race assignment.
A series of 24 neutral craniofacial assessments also revealed the following 8 population clusters:
Data from 24 craniofacial dimensions were compiled for samples representing all the human populations of the world. These were converted into C scores and used to construct Euclidean Distance dendrograms. The populations of the world are best depicted as 8 major regional clusters representing: Africa, Amerind, Asia-Mainland, Australo-Melanesia, Eskimo-Siberia, Europe, India, and Jomon-Pacific.
Li, Y. Y., C. L. Brace, et al. (1991). “Dimensions of face in Asia in the perspective of geography and prehistory.” Am J Phys Anthropol 85(3): 269-79.
Note the classification of Indians as outside the group of Europeans, something that can be easily appreciated by going through the pictures of Indians on this page. So much for your claim that it would be impossible to show a South Asian cluster because of the contribution of multiple races to South Asia or your claim that:
“Also, I already agreed that skull measurement studies etc., are the best and would be much more preferable to hair color etc ( re earleir post ) and it is this type of study that is lacking.”
There is clearly a South Asian cluster based on both ancestry-informative markers (see the Yang et al. citation above) and 24 neutral craniofacial markers. Thus, whereas South Asians are not assigned a race of their own because this would not be consistent with the phylogeographic criteria of race assignment, it is clear that they are outside the race of whites.
Besides, I can see that I am wasting my time citing all this current evidence when you are willing to assign Caucasoid status to a non-white with about 50% non-Caucasoid admixture; ref: the profile of the South Asian from DNAPrint Genomics shown above. You obviously cannot be convinced by state of the art molecular and craniofacial evidence because you will not accept any evidence.
Therefore, do not waste my time over this issue again unless you can cite comparable evidence (not an argument by authority) showing that South Asians belong to the same race as whites and argue against the evidence that I have provided.
Regarding cluster analysis, let us consider populations that are assessed on multiple variables. If there are no significant differences between the populations on each count, then would it be possible to show that the populations belong to separate groups by virtue of cluster analysis of the variables assessed? Obviously, if cluster analysis distributes the individuals sampled over separate groups, it is because there are statistically significant differences between the clusters with respect to multiple variables and there is a correlation structure underlying these differences.
Continued below.
Posted by J Richards on May 06, 2006, 01:48 AM | #
Malcolm A,
Regarding celebrities, I have not implied that all of them are not good looking. Some obviously are good looking. Once again, the celebrity status of the women that we are comparing is not relevant; it is how they look that is relevant. Besides, you are grossly mistaken in assuming that all women that I have posted are celebrities. A number of the women that I have posted are non-celebrities and some are ordinary women who, far from being famous, just have their pictures on the internet without having their names mentioned. A number of these women are also American, unlike your impression that they are all residents of Europe.
Where have I implied that all Miss World contestants are not good looking? One need only look at most contestants, including top-ranked contestants, to understand that the Miss World contest is surely not about an emphasis on beauty, but this is not to say that none of the contestants are good looking. As I have extensively pointed above, it is unlikely that Miss India has to deal with the extent of political correctness that Miss USA has to, yet white women competing in the Miss USA contest easily outcompete South Asian participants in Miss India contest, on average, in looks.
I will quote the following passage by you verbatim because of the sheer nonsense in it.
“Maybe you could post a Nordic in a similar posture and then compare w/ Ash. Our women (Nordic ) that you posted so far are no match for most of the Indians I have posted ( Diya Mirza (Miss Asia Pacific ), Celina ( Miss Universe Runner up, Ash (Miss world ) by any standards. Also they (the Nordics) all look the same with no variablitly or range (inbred ), like the Indians, who come from a wider gene pool. Indians show a wider range of looks that suits a range of tastes in skin color, facial type, height, features etc as they all come from an Indo Aryan Caucasoid base topped up by a very fine genetic contribution form other races which enhances their exotic beauty. Again the median is the preferred . Also any neutral observer can see that these women ( both Nordic and Indian ) are Caucasoids, and NOT either Mongoloids or Negroids.”
You have to be seriously deluded if you think that most of the Indian women shown here easily beat the Nordic women shown here in looks by any standards. When it comes to having finer facial features, the Nordic women shown beat the Indians shown hands down. Finer facial features means having less massive jaws, not having hooked noses, having less rugged facial features, having narrower noses, having less massive cheekbones, etc. Only two of the comparisons above have addressed the physique, and with the exception of sodomites, it is a universal standard among men that feminine physiques in women are preferred. It is clear that both Aishwarya Rai and Urmila Matondkar have less feminine physiques than the women that I have compared them to.
It is not unusual for people to think that others of a different race look alike, but if you are a white man, then your statement that the Nordic women that I have shown all look the same is evidence of your piss-poor perception. The Nordic women that I have shown are so different looking that no two of them could be seen as sisters by Northern Europeans. Additionally, no neutral observer with reasonable perception will get the impression that most of the South Asian women shown here have Caucasoid faces, which would be in accordance with the 24 neutral craniofacial markers classifying Indians as outside the grouping of Europeans (see above). Besides, the “fine genetic contribution” of non-Caucasoids to Indo Aryans in the past is a type of contribution that is unwelcome in the present West.
You have again pointed out, twice, that the median in looks is preferred. Where are your citations? It has been shown that whereas the average within a population is good looking, average faces are the not the best looking faces, and you have ignored evidence that I have cited in previous comments showing that there is no average face when it comes to the human species. Race mixing produces an intermediate shape on some counts only; many face shape variables in racially mixed offspring clearly deviate from the hypothetical shape obtained by averaging the parental shapes, something that is accompanied by some loss of morphological integration in the skull, undoubtedly resulting from disruption of co-adapted gene complexes (read: bad outcome).
You have ignored the fact that when non-Nordic men desire women from other populations, these women are usually Nordic women rather than South Asian women, including elite South Asian women.
Don’t kid yourself about my being intimidated by the pictures of Manisha Koirala that you linked to. Anyone can copy and paste the links and see the pictures. As usual, your pictures didn’t reveal the features of the woman well enough and I had to search for other pictures of her, and most can see just how much of her is Indo-Aryan.
Regarding straight noses, you had no idea that a number of the women that you have pointed out have hooked noses and blamed me for using pictures from a certain angle to give the impression of hooked noses, which prompted me to come up with clear profile views to show that these women indeed have hooked noses. This again reflects on your piss-poor perception. Besides, I am not enamored with straight noses; straight noses in profile view are typical in Northern Europeans and are a standard requirement in an attractive person in a European context.
You have again rehashed your argument about Saira Mohan, without citations, and ignored my debunking of the alleged good looks of Saira Mohan.
Whether the white woman that I have compared Urmila Matondkar to can be beaten hands down in looks by many Nordic women is not relevant; what is relevant is whether this woman beats Urmila in looks, and she indeed does so in both the face and body. Your piss-poor perception again shows in your comment that the white woman has a wide face. The white woman has a narrower face than Urmila; she has more fat in her cheeks though. Urmila clearly has more prominent cheekbones; just look at the pictures that you yourself linked to. I picked a photo of Urmila that would please you, but this photo shows her face tilted downward, yet her more prominent cheekbones are visible. Besides, I have not seen any criticism of the physique of the white woman by you in comparison to Urmila’s physique, which is the important issue because your posting links to Urmila’s pictures was apparently in the context of the physique. The rest of your criticism addresses pigmentation that I have repeatedly asked you to ignore since we are focusing of facial features. I don’t like yellow or yellow-brown skin and could point out these features in the women that you have selected, but the point is to focus on face shape. In addition, I have pointed out that I am not fond of the looks of the white woman that I have compared Urmila to, but she is okay for the comparison, and if a white woman with her looks can easily be beaten hands down by many Nordic women, then this can only mean that Indian beauty is no match for Nordic beauty because a not-so-attractive Nordic woman can easily beat some of the best looking Indian women.
You have asked me to dig up better looking women and suggested Angelina Jolie. Previously you mentioned Catherine Zeta Jones in the context of attractive women. I wonder how bad your perception can be? I have shown a picture of Catherine Zeta Jones above, which speaks for itself.
Angelina Jolie is a fine example of an attractive Nordic woman, right?
Angelina Jolie is part Native American in case you didn’t know.
Anyway, tell me between Mallika Sherawat and the Nordic woman next to her, who has finer facial features?
Posted by IndianGirl on May 06, 2006, 03:39 AM | #
Indiangirl - isnt it likely that these poor, pretty high-caste girls will, on average, get to marry into money though? Like your mother in fact.
Yes, you’re right.
Not to mention that many second-generation Indian boys are going back home to get brides. The fact that these poor, high-caste girls also have traditional values may make them more appealing to a rich man.
Rumor has it that rich girls in the big Indian cities are more prone to boozing, promiscuous behavior. The same thing applies to South-Asian girls brought up in the West. This doesn’t apply to everybody though.
Posted by tyutyu on May 06, 2006, 07:40 AM | #
you are all stupid and wasting your time. Go get a gf.
Posted by Malcolm A on May 07, 2006, 03:31 AM | #
Hi J. R.
1Your classification of Caucasoid races is citation-less and has obvious roots in 19th century anthropology. Do you have any modern citations that show European populations to be divided into races? I am not talking about a position statement, but evidence, that supports races among whites? And, do you have citations that support the concept of sub-races? There is a valid concept of race or subspecies in taxonomy, but I have not heard of sub-sub-species or sub-race as part of the taxonomical literature.
(i) Here is the citation. Unfortunately it is based on the book, Racial Compact (1994) by one of our own, the great white nationalist, preservationist and Nordic theoretician, Anthropologist Richard McCullough. So obviously NOT 19th century. If a great white supremacist of the ilk of Richard accepts Indics and Nordics as sub-groups of Caucasoids, who am I to disagree. Do you (disagree) ?
http://www.racialcompact.com/racesofhumanity.html
(ii) The concept of sub races is well founded in both Social Biology and Darwinism. There are variations within species that cause sub-species(races) and then there are variations within sub species that lead to varieties ( some debate over this term) which would eventually grow into separate races. I cite Charles E Darwin’s ‘On The Origin of Species’ if you really insist on citations. This is a famous piece of work and I am sure you can track it down.
(iii) As for citations in regards to the division of European population into sub races what better citation than our great white hope, Richard mcCullough himself. AND btw do you have citations proving that they are NOT divided into sub races ( Nordic, Alpine etc )
2.The citation from Cavalli-Sforza that you have mentioned is 30 years old. More recently, Cavalli- Sforza has denied the existence of races, obviously to not have his funding dry up. Besides, saying that Caucasians are spread out as far as India is not to say that Indians are a Caucasoid people, but simply implies that some Caucasoids are found in India, and Cavalli-Sforza has mentioned that there is a transition to Easterners in India.
(i) This contention is erroneous. The Theory of Relativity, The Theory of Evolution, Quantum Mechanics etc., are more than 70 years old and still stand.
(ii) Cavalli has NOT denied the existence of Races more recently as, his own words in his The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994), quoted by me yet again here, indicate otherwise “..it does show the unity of the other Caucasoids from Europe,… and in the West, South and much of Central Asia.” I am certain you had no difficulty in understanding the underlined portion of the quotation which cannot be made any clearer.
(iii) Please change the words ‘some Caucasoids’ to ‘some Mongoloids (3%)’, and your 3rd statment would be accurate. There are many caucasoids (97%) in India according to the latest CIA world book (2005).
3.More importantly, if you are a man of science, you should know the difference between an argument by authority (so and so says this….) and an argument by evidence; the former being unacceptable. Therefore, where are your citations involving evidence? You have not cited any proof of there being only 3 major biological races. I can cite modern genetic evidence for at least 5 races (all major population groupings) among humans (Europeans, black Africans, East Asians, Melanesian/Australian, Native American):
(i) I am a experienced Population Biologist with 2
post-graduate degrees, and over 25 years of field experience as well as over 40 publications in my field of expertise. I am NOT a Geneticist though. I am also aware that anyone can claim anything on the internet. So this is not important.
(ii) The citations do exist and I have indeed cited some of the highest authorities ( Cavalli, Bamshad etc ), which you tend to dismiss as outdated etc. Luigi Luca Cavalli Sforza is considered the foremost authority on Gene based systematics and I have cited him again above. I am also citing below another famous scholar Prof. P. Rushton who wrote in support the 3 Races theory as recently as 1994
“......I review the behavioral, morphological, and physiological differences between the three major human races—mongoloid, caucasoid, and negroid .....
again,
....... Mongoloids, caucasoids, and negroids can be distinguished on the basis of obvious differences in skeletal morphology, hair and facial features, as well by blood groups and DNA fingerprints. Forensic anthropologists regularly classify skeletons of decomposed bodies by race....
again
........For example, narrow nasal passages and a short distance between eye sockets identify a caucasoid person, distinct cheekbones characterize a mongoloid person, and nasal openings shaped like an upside down heart typify a negroid person ”
4.I can cite modern genetic evidence for at least 5 races ....
(i) I cannot help but emphasize the fact that I have repeatedly stated to you that I am NOT saying Nordics and Indics are similar. There maybe so many differences between them as you cite. BUT they do fall under the same major group Caucasian. In regards to cranial differences etc, I beg to revisit Rushton’s satement above which typifies the major identifying differences between the 3 races based on cranial measurements.,
5. Some populations not included in the 5 races are mixed groups—such as South Asians—and are not assigned a race because of the failure of such designation to satisfy phylogeographic criteria for race assignment.
(i) Your contention that all Indians can be classified as ‘mixed race ‘ is totally erroneous. It is like saying all Americans can be classified as a mixed race. What you are talking about is countries of many races ( USA has Caucasians, Negroids, Mongoloids etc and SO DOES INDIA ) They are multi-racial countries and not countries of one ‘mixed race ‘ That is why such confusion exists as to who is an American or who is an Indian.
6. Besides, I can see that I am wasting my time citing all this current evidence when you are willing to assign Caucasoid status to a non-white with about 50% non-Caucasoid admixture; ref: the profile of the South Asian from DNAPrint Genomics shown above.You obviously cannot be convinced by state of the art molecular and craniofacial evidence because you will not accept any evidence.
Therefore, do not waste my time over this issue again unless you can cite comparable evidence (not an argument by authority) showing that South Asians belong to the same race as whites and argue against the evidence that I have provided.
(i) You seem to be losing your patience which is not a good sign in a scholarly debate.
(ii) Although you say I have NOT cited evidence , it is very clear that I have indeed done so as shown above. Is it your premise that Indians have no classification status in zoological systematics because, in your opinon, they are ‘mixed’ The craniofacial evidence you cite proves Indians and Nordics do not match as sub groups and NOT that they are not Caucasians. S. Asians maybe outside the cluster of whites but both groups cluster under Caucasoids. (see my citation of Rushtons statement above).
(iii) Well, let’s then analyze these latest ‘findings’ of yours, that have you greatly excited.
a) You have given four citations indicating evidence for 5 races based on genetic studies (clustering etc.). Two of these citations involve Rosenberg who is not even an authority as compared to Cavalli. Also according to your own earlier posts, modern science refutes ‘ race’ ? So which one is it. Are there 5 races or NOT? Further, according to these esteemed articles, the Indians cannot even be classified by their criteria. A gaping hole in their theory, technique and conclusions. Ever heard of a zoological classification that left out a whole chunk of the species ? Aren’t there any identifying criteria specific to this mongrel Indian populaton if it is indeed a single unit ?
I propose to you that this difficulty arose due to the fact that S.Asians come from many different races [ Caucasoids ( Indics, dravidics etc ), Mongoloids etc ] and therefore cannot be sampled as one statistical population. If, as you say, they are a mixed population, there would be identifying parameters that separate them as one distinct unit
b) You cite 1 anthropological paper by Brace et al, identifying 8 clusters based on craniofacial measurements. MY question to you is, if you are indeed a Biologist , which I assume you should be in order to debate me on this matter, how does these 5 races fit into these 8 clusters ? 8/5 = 1.6 or 5/8 =0.6?
6. Clusterig studies…
(i) As intimated to you earlier, I have done some of these studies myself. Correlation analysis is used to show signifcant association and not significant differences between groups of OTUs.This helps in clustering them together.[correlation = association ].. Please consult a good stats manual…
7. I recommend that you read Edward’s debunking of Lewontin’s fallacy in BioEssays [Volume 25, Issue 8, Date: August 2003, Pages: 798-801].
(i) In regards to the above comment are you sure that Edward’s debunked Lewontin’s fallacy, or did he debunk Lewontin’s theory as a fallacy? This comment of yours has made me somewhat suspicious of your biological knowledge.
(ii) Are you a Biologist, because, if NOT, we are both wasting our time. But I am cartainly not one to back off , when I have clear supporting evidence. I Consider this as an educational experience for both of us.
Part two follows..
Posted by Malcolm A on May 07, 2006, 03:53 AM | #
Hi J.R.
Here we go again
8. Here is another citation that you may want to look up. The US Supreme Court vs. Bhagat Singh Thind.
During the era of draconian Jim Crowe laws, having considered anthropological and other evidence the US Supreme Court ruled that Indians were caucasians.
1. Regarding celebrities, I have ..etc..
This is not that important and you maybe right...but when deciding on beauty on this thread, it is a “I said ; you said” situation ...
2.Where have I implied that all Miss World contestants are not good looking? One need only look at most contestants, etc..
Neither you nor I can decide on our own as we have different tastes in beauty. That’s why we have panels of judges and international opinion. To bring up “political correctness’ etc to explain away’ losses and losers, ‘ after the fact, sounds like sour grapes....Any complaints should be made prior to the contest. If a Nordic wins I would never complain.
3.I will quote the following passage by you verbatim because of the sheer nonsense init.“Maybe you could post a Nordic in a similar posture and then compare w/ Ash. Our women (Nordic ) that you posted so far are no match for most of the Indians I have posted etc..
Same as above. Taste differs. But this time around, I backed up my contentions with some stats ( winners of international pageants ) as evidence. If any of your Nordic pic selections are winners too, you have to only point that out and I will agree.....
4.You have to be seriously deluded if you think that most of the Indian women shown here easily beat the Nordic women shown here in looks by any standards. When it comes to having finer facial features, the Nordic women shown beat the Indians shown hands down.
(i) Ok. We agree to disagree on this point. But I did back up my contention with beauty stats, that at least some of the Indians were internationally recognized beauties (ie pageant winners ).
(ii) You do NOT have any evidence to backup most of what you say about massive jaws etc, I have posted Indians who were accepted as exceptional by International Mags , pageants etc.. Urmila was commended by Maxim Mag and you should take up her looks with them..
(iii) I agree with you that a shapely figure is an asset, but, as you may well know the Victorian standard of beauty was totally different. Indians have fine figures too. You should see women like Asha Parekh if you want to see bodies.
(iv) I have replied to your craniofacial argument above as non acceptable. Even otherwise, the mere fact that Nordics and Indians have 24 measurements that differ does not indicate which group has the better ones.
5 .Don’t kid yourself about my being intimidated by the pictures of Manisha Koirala that you linked to. Anyone can copy and paste the links and see the pictures
Well, you never ever post my links...If at all rarely. Makes me think you are afraid that they look too good and would prove my point. There are some here who can’t connect to the links.. Even though you have posted some the worst pics of the Indians ( mallika, Manisha etc ) vs some the best of our Nordic women , you are still in trouble judging by the comments.
Complains about Angelina Jolie ? Take it up with People and also that other UK monthly that did a poll on beauty last year which also elected her as the most beautiful.
As for Saira Mohan, I did not select her. It was a panel of experts. You should take it up with them. As of now, despite your claims to the contrary, she is the global face of beauty and no two about it. Pardon my American slang !
6.Anyway, tell me between Mallika Sherawat and the Nordic woman next to her, who has finer facial features?
Hmm… let’s see. Between Mallika’s bad pics and your favourite’s excellent pic… seems to me like your favourite is a little anemic looking. But as you say skin color doesn’t matter. They both do have straight noses and a pointed chin, but then would Howard Stern give the time of day to your choice. I’m not sure. Will Jackie Chan offer her a role in a movie. Who knows? Let’s ask Jackie.
Anyway, here is someone you know very well in disguise !
http://www.bollywoodblitz.com/stars/madhuri/md11.shtml>
and here is Namrata Shirodkar, 1st runner up Miss Universe, and praised by Geoff Boycott ( test Cricketer ) and some American movie critics ( Bride and Prejudice )as even better looking than Ash Rai !!
http://www.bollywood2000.com/wallpapers/actresses/namrata/images/big/namrata4.jpg
http://www.bollywood2000.com/wallpapers/actresses/namrata/images/big/namrata8.jpg
http://www.bollywood2000.com/wallpapers/actresses/namrata/images/big/namrata8.jpg
http://www.bollywood2000.com/wallpapers/actresses/namrata/images/big/namrata9.jpg
Take it easy. Talk to you soon.
Ciao.
Posted by Malcolm A on May 07, 2006, 04:15 AM | #
Hi JR
That ‘1st link on the earlier post, ‘stranger in disguise’ was messed up ( > at the end has to removed ). The correct link follows
http://www.bollywoodblitz.com/stars/madhuri/md11.shtml
Here are some more for comparison w/ our Nordic beauties.
http://www.chalo.net/cgi-bin/madhuri.pl?madhuri0008.jpg
http://www.chalo.net/cgi-bin/madhuri.pl?madhuri0016.jpg
http://www.chalo.net/cgi-bin/madhuri.pl?madhuri0032.jpg
http://www.chalo.net/cgi-bin/madhuri.pl?madhuri0011.jpg
http://www.chalo.net/cgi-bin/madhuri.pl?madhuri0014.jpg
cheers
Posted by Malcolm A on May 07, 2006, 04:22 AM | #
Hi IndianGirl,
Based on my experience with Indians, an elite Indian family is one which is descended on both sides ( maternal and paternal ) from families that have belonged to high society for at least three generations. Here high society = old wealth, aristocracy/ high caste, western education, and high class all combined.
Cheers.
Posted by C. M. on May 08, 2006, 12:43 PM | #
This malcolm is clearly a hindu in disguise as white man, yeah this guy is also spamming other forums with his non existing hindu stupidities.
He uses 1976 books as source or 19th century old stuff to make a point, yeah before genes research was invented and he accept no sound scientific reason.
Something else: stop calling these hindus part mongoloid, they are part middle eastern (hooked noses, massive jaws) and part australoid, australoid is not the same as mongoloid, they would have looked better if they have mixed with mongoloid.
Posted by C. M. on May 08, 2006, 01:28 PM | #
Another good reading is:
http://grokhovs1.chat.ru/legacy.html
It describes the composition of paleolithic genes and neolithic genes of todays Europeans as 80% paleolithic and 20% neolithic (9000 years ago when farmers from fertile crescent migrated into Europe bringing not only new food plant and animals but also Indo European speech, Indo European language is from the area now called Anatolia).
Posted by C. M. on May 08, 2006, 01:41 PM | #
I have this to say: the hindu women depicted here look like middle eastern women. I am not getting excited about it.
I have another thing to say: I did not know that Catherine Zeta Jones was so plain to speak of… she looked like some woman from Spain, Italy or Greece before her plastic surgery and after plastic surgery she looked like some woman from Ukraine with Mongoloid admixture.
Before complaining about flaring cheekbones, they make women look better, look at the picture of the girl immediately after the header. Kirsten Dunst has them too, as Ali Larter, or Evangeline Lilly to name a few.
Posted by C. M. on May 08, 2006, 02:27 PM | #
Yes, Nordic women are the prettiest. It’s not only the fine facial features or the blue eyes or the blonde hair.
Women of norhtern Europe have great bodies, the sandclock figure, narrow waist, broad hips, nice butt and long legs, tall.
More refined in everything.
Women from Southern Europe are more like those as in Middle east, too fat, fat ass, too puny and too coarse in facial features. It must be the middle eastern admixture.
Posted by C. M. on May 08, 2006, 02:31 PM | #
This thread rocks! Let’s move this to front page!
Oh yes keep up the good work of posting the pics of these pretty women minus the hindus.
Posted by JB on May 08, 2006, 02:34 PM | #
Malcolm all you have to do to post pictures is to put ‘img’ and ‘/img’ in brackets [] (i have inverted them just to show) ]img[]PICTURE LINK ----.JPG[]/img[
J Richards:
I can cite modern genetic evidence for at least 5 races (all major population groupings) among humans (Europeans, black Africans, East Asians, Melanesian/Australian, Native American)
Melanesian/Australian and Native American can’t really be called major due to their numbers.
Where would Arabs and Turks fit in those five categories ?
Malcolm A:
But this time around, I backed up my contentions with some stats ( winners of international pageants ) as evidence. If any of your Nordic pic selections are winners too, you have to only point that out and I will agree.....
that doesn’t mean much. Who are on the juries in these contests ? Nationality, race, gender, age, income, etc. any idea ?
Do you think a south asian special edition of say Penthouse magazine would outsell a nordic one ? I think those stats would be more meaningful
C. M.
This malcolm is clearly a hindu in disguise as white man, yeah this guy is also spamming other forums with his non existing hindu stupidities.
maybe he’s one of Razib’s or GC’s cousins
Posted by C. M. on May 08, 2006, 02:56 PM | #
“Melanesian/Australian and Native American can’t really be called major due to their numbers.”
Yes, they can. I can explain it too. There were two waves out of Africa, a land route and a coastal route.
The coastal route involves the ancestors of todays australoids/melanesians, reason why hindus have alot of australoid admixture (south east Asian) is because the coastal route went via India. They reached Australia 60000 BC.
The other route involves a landroute and these people were the ancestors of what is to become European, North East Asians and middle easterners.
There are more than 3 races, even more than the 5 that you cited. The reason why people look “different” is due to genetic drift and isolation. You should understand that there was a very small founding population especially for the nordics.
If we are to talk about races, there are about 8 races.
5 does not sound illogical and people from south Asia are a blend of middle easterners and australoids (iranians +dravidians).
Posted by Malcolm A on May 08, 2006, 03:17 PM | #
.This malcolm is clearly a hindu in disguise as white man, yeah this guy is also spamming other forums with his non existing hindu stupidities
I am neither a Hindu nor an Indian, and you can take that to the bank.
Just playing devil’s advocate to see how J.Richard’s ‘scientific’ theories stand in the face of real science
Name the sites I am supposedly spamming so others can see for themselves too
Posted by Malcolm A on May 08, 2006, 03:59 PM | #
Hi JB
that doesn’t mean much. Who are on the juries in these contests ? Nationality, race, gender, age, income, etc. any idea ?
You probably haven’t read the thead carefully. I have given all the names of one panel in an earlier post. BTW
Are you questioning the validity of panels now ?
Do you think a south asian special edition of say Penthouse magazine would outsell a nordic one ? I think those stats would be more meaningful
That depends. Witht Ash Rai, Mallika Sherawat etc, it may well do good business.. But, in any case, Indians and Latinos have , in recent years, begun to outclass Nordics in Beauty pageants etc and where the most Beautiful 1% of women are concerned.
eg India won ALL 4 major international beauty pageants in 2000 (Miss Universe, Miss World, Miss Asia Pacific and Ms World ) . A world record . So undoubtedly something is going on besides JR’s ‘political correctness’ theory
3. Although I am quite reluctant to talk science with non-scientists, I must say the 5 race, 7 race theory etc., are NOT proven at all. The only accepted races are the 3 already known ones. Others are just ‘proposed’ races.
Cheers
Posted by AD on May 08, 2006, 04:16 PM | #
Jules said:
Again, yes I wish to preserve the aryan roots...[ ]...Blond hair and blue eyes have become so common nowadays...[ ].... I am a very attractive Nordic woman and get plenty of attention and admiration..[ ]...we both went in for modeling and got the agents interest, but shes the one that books all the ads. Maybe she just has a charm about her...[ ].... to say that most white men prefer a nordic woman is based on my experience and many other people’s experience absolutely wrong!!
A “Nordic woman”, also a “model”, who wants to preserve “the aryan roots” but can’t compete with her half asian “of some sort” friend, taking the time to post on Majority Rights.
Sounds believable.
Posted by JB on May 09, 2006, 12:25 AM | #
Malcolm:
I have given all the names of one panel in an earlier post.
their names not their race, age, sexual orientation, occupation, whether they have investments in Revlon, etc. For all I know the men on the panel could be homosexuals or metrosexuals working for fashion magazines.
Malcolm:
Are you questioning the validity of panels now ?
yes, the validity of their opinion concerning female beauty. When I see beauty pageant contestants I see living ads for cosmetics companies not attractive women. I don’t like the glitz and the makeup overdose and I suspect a lot of men don’t either. And I don’t consider white fashion models to be particularly beautiful. I’d like to know the % of women VS men in the audience that attends or watches a beauty pageant or some other contest like Miss America, Miss Canada, etc. And the same for the readership of glitzy glossy fashion/beauty magazines
Malcolm:
But, in any case, Indians and Latinos have, in recent years, begun to outclass Nordics in Beauty pageants etc and where the most Beautiful 1% of women are concerned.
Who besides heterosexual men are in a better position to judge a woman’s beauty ? I’ve seen more beautiful women on the streets of small canadian towns than in the pages of glossy Revlon sponsored magazines. Beauty pageants are like the Grammies for music, the Oscars for movies, the Pulitzers for journalism, the ??? for books, etc. media creations that are mostly meaningless by themselves.
Malcolm:
Although I am quite reluctant to talk science with non-scientists,…
A good scientist is someone who can explain science to the common man and since probably most MR readers are a notch above you shouldn’t hesitate to enlighten the non scientifically trained among us. Even though I don’t have a degree in one of the hard sciences I can understand a scientific debate if the debaters are coherent and use terms for which there is a established definition. I can probably understand most of what you or JR wrote but I haven’t read the whole page because this particular topic bores me and is not really important anyway.
I’m familiar with Rushton’s racial trichotomy because I’ve read the short version of his book.
Malcolm:
I must say the 5 race, 7 race theory etc., are NOT proven at all. The only accepted races are the 3 already known ones. Others are just ‘proposed’ races.
there seems to be a contradiction between this assertion and your approval of Cavalli-Sforza’s work :
http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/may_24.htm
“The color map of the world shows very distinctly the differences that we know exist among the continents: Africans (yellow), Caucasoids (green), Mongoloids … (purple), and Australian Aborigines (red). The map does not show well the strong Caucasoid component in northern Africa, but it does show the unity of the other Caucasoids from Europe, and in West, South, and much of Central Asia.”
Posted by J Richards on May 09, 2006, 12:57 AM | #
C.M.,
Hindus are indeed part Mongoloid, as both genetic data and facial features reveal. Hindus also have Middle Eastern and Australoid/aboriginal elements, like you have pointed out. Additionally, in East Asia, there is clinal variation from the southeast to the northeast, and hence some continuity between the flat-faced NE Asians and the less-overall-flattened SE Asians, yet there is no difficulty in assigning Australo-Melanesians and NE Asians to separate races, just as some level of continuity from Europe to India does not imply that Europeans and South Asians belong to the same race.
JB,
Racial classification takes into account genetic profile, physical appearance, geographic residence, etc. (read about the phylogeographic criteria for race assignment). Thus, Australo-Melanesians are appropriately classified as a prominent racial group, major racial group if you please, in spite of their small numbers, though the term major should not be used because of its ambiguity. Regarding the classification of Arabs and Turks, if you read about the phylogeographic criteria for race assignment, you will understand that some human populations cannot be assigned a race.
Fred Scrooby,
Kate Beckinsale in one-eight Burmese, yet it doesn’t show in her. Therefore, you cannot assume that Benazir Bhutto has no Mongoloid ancestry. The fact is that there is a large East Asian component in South Asia, and it is not just limited to those who look part-Mongoloid.
Malcolm A,
I told you not to waste my time over the race stuff unless you can cite comparable evidence and refute the evidence that I have cited. Do you not understand the difference between an argument by authority and an argument based on evidence?
Look at what you have cited to support the classification of South Asians as Caucasoids and the division of humanity into three “major” races: 1) Richard McCullough, a Nordicist who has not cited molecular and/or craniofacial evidence to support his classification scheme and one who has simply lifted the classification scheme from old and largely qualitative anthropological work; 2) an obscure statement by Cavalli-Sforza, which implies some level of continutity between Europeans and South Asians, which should not be surprising since there are well-documented clines and also because South Asia has seen European migrations in the past; 3) a statement by Rushton, who has not cited molecular data and has mentioned craniofacial traits that distinguish blacks, whites and NE Asians, which does not prove the existence of only 3 races; 4) the 2005 CIA Worldbook, which allegedly classifies 97% of people in India as Caucasians; and 5) the U.S. Supreme Court that labeled a South Asian as a Caucasian in the Jim Crow era!
You have not cited molecular and/or craniofacial evidence from peer-reviewed journals to back up your claims, whereas this is the type of evidence that I have cited to back up my claims, and you have not refuted my citations. The stance of a top-ranked scientist isn’t worth a damn unless he can cite empirical evidence to back up his claims, and empirical evidence is what you need. Look at it this way. If you submitted a paper to a journal to argue that South Asians are overwhelmingly Caucasoid and that there are three “major” races among humans with your kind of supporting evidence, what will happen? Unanimous rejection!
If the concept of a sub-race is a valid taxonomical category, why have you been unable to cite a supporting reference based on the current literature? You have cited Darwin to support the notion of a sub-race! Back then, the classification scheme was nowhere as formal and substantiated as in the present. For instance, Josiah Nott classified blacks and whites as members of separate species, yet included both among mankind. Additionally, the formal concept of a biological species (Ernst Mayr) is a 20th century concept, and so on.
Since you raised the notion of sub-races, it is your responsibility to provide evidence for sub-races based on the current taxonomical literature rather than my responsibility to provide evidence against them. The classification scheme that you cited classifies Nordics, Alpines and Mediterraneans as separate races, but the question you ask me is to provide evidence that these groups are not sub-races. What is this? Of course, Northern, Central and Southern European populations look different, but is sub-race a valid taxon and are these groups sub-races based on this valid taxon? Cite current empirical evidence from peer-reviewed journals; don’t waste my time by saying so and so says this.
In response to my saying that a statement by Cavalli-Sforza is 30 years old, you came up with the absurd response that “The Theory of Relativity, The Theory of Evolution, Quantum Mechanics etc., are more than 70 years old and still stand.” Just because some old ideas still stand doesn’t mean that all old ideas still stand.
Do not repeat your statement that it is not your argument that Nordics and South Asians are similar. It is obvious that you believe that these groups differ but fall into the same race. However, evidence from neutral DNA markers, ancestry-informative markers and neutral craniofacial measurements unambiguously reveal that South Asians do not belong to the same race that whites belong to. I am obviously wasting my time in trying to convince you of this because you classified the South Asian shown in the data from DNAPrint genomics as Caucasoid even though this person has close to 50% of his genetic material derived from non-Caucasoids!
You have written that it is my contention that all Indians can be classified as ‘mixed race.‘ Where have I implied this? Most Indians are mixed race. Even the Brahmins are mostly mixed race, as per one of the citations that I have mentioned above and also common observation. For instance, when I was in India, I never came across one South Asian that could be passed off as a white person, though there were some rare cases that approached the looks of borderline-white Southern Europeans, which is not to say that white-looking South Asians do not exist, but they are obviously very rare. You have acknowledged that Europeans have migrated to India in the past, including Nordic types such as the Aryans, but if these people had remained largely unmixed, then high caste Hindus would mostly look white, but they don’t. The pictures of Hindu women that you have pointed out mostly show non-Caucasoids, and in some cases where they look Caucasoid—e.g., Diya Mirza and Katrina Kaif—it turns out that these women have a white parent each. Therefore, the central tendency in India is to be mixed race, whereas in a multiracial society such as the USA, the vast majority of whites are overwhelmingly European (some have been living in parts of the nation that are predominantly white) and the mixed race people are American blacks, a large number of Native Americans, Hispanics, South Asians, and some other groups.
Continued below.
Posted by J Richards on May 09, 2006, 12:59 AM | #
Malcolm A,
You said that I seem to be losing my patience, which is not a good sign in a scholarly debate. Of course I am getting frustrated, and it is because of your unscholarly arguments; scholarly debate my ass! You started off by citing your degrees and background, none of which matter one bit when it comes to supporting one’s arguments by citing empirical references. The evidence that you cite comprises of arguments by authority; this authority said this, this major organization ranked this woman as very beautiful, and so on. You rehash your arguments, ignore a number of things that I have cited, and have yet to show how it is possible for cluster analysis to assign individuals to separate groups if there are no statistically significant differences between the groups. I will elaborate on why I am getting frustrated by commenting on the following passage by you:
You have given four citations indicating evidence for 5 races based on genetic studies (clustering etc.). Two of these citations involve Rosenberg who is not even an authority as compared to Cavalli. Also according to your own earlier posts, modern science refutes ‘ race’ ? So which one is it. Are there 5 races or NOT? Further, according to these esteemed articles, the Indians cannot even be classified by their criteria. A gaping hole in their theory, technique and conclusions. Ever heard of a zoological classification that left out a whole chunk of the species ? Aren’t there any identifying criteria specific to this mongrel Indian populaton if it is indeed a single unit ?
You twist my words. I did not cite evidence for 5 races; I cited evidence for at least 5 races. You undermine two of these citations by saying that Rosenberg is not an authority like Cavalli-Sforza is. I repeat that there are no arguments by authority in science. Rosenberg provided 1) molecular evidence comprising of neutral DNA markers, which is the gold standard in taxonomy; 2) his 2005 paper used 993 micorsatellites, a much higher number than most studies in this regard, including the studies by Cavalli-Sforza and others leading to Cavalli-Sforza’s 1994 book; 3) used geography-based sampling rather than the population-based sampling seen in previous studies, thereby refuting a major objection to racial clustering in humans; and 4) showed racial clustering regardless of model choice whereby the neutral markers are assumed to be either correlated or uncorrelated, which takes care of another objection to racial clustering of humans. Therefore, I have cited recent and state of the art evidence for at least 5 races in humans, but you have not cited anything comparable to support your contention of three major races in humans.
You have twisted my words by saying, “Also according to your own earlier posts, modern science refutes ‘ race’ ?” I said that there is no official acknowledgement of races in humans. Official acknowledgement is something on the part of scientists. Science, as in scientific data, unambiguously supports the existence of human races.
Then you go on to say that “according to these esteemed articles, the Indians cannot even be classified by their criteria.” This is absurd refusal to look at the data that I have cited. Both the paper by Yang et al. and Li et al. show a separate South Asian cluster based on ancestry-informative DNA markers and neutral craniofacial measurements, respectively. Therefore, South Asians have their own distinct group, which reflects the central tendency in the population, the existence of which is not undermined by outliers. The question, however, is the racial status of South Asians. I made repeated references to phylogeographic criteria for race assignment in a recent previous comment, and you have completely ignored it or else it would be clear to you why the nature of race mixing in South Asia, including its heterogeneous and asymmetric nature, and the known history of the peopling of South Asia prevent South Asians from being assigned a race. There is no shortcoming in methodology here. Sometimes two species can be viably crossed, but this does not mean that the hybrid offspring are assigned a species, and even if the hybrid offspring are assigned a species, it will not be the species of either parent. Recall again the rainbow analogy. Whereas the color bands of a rainbow are assigned a color, the region where one band blends into another is not assigned a color.
The problem is not simply your ignoring what I am saying, but also your failure to understand some of the things that I am saying. For instance, you wrote, “If, as you say, they are a mixed population, there would be identifying parameters that separate them as one distinct unit.” Guess what? What do the Yang et al. and Li et al. papers show? They show that the great majority of South Asians are characterized by a cluster of shared molecular and craniofacial structures that make South Asians stand out as a separate group among the major divisions of humankind. Once again, phylogeographic criteria for race assignment prevent assigning a separate race to South Asians, but it is clear that they, as a group, don’t belong to any of the following races: European, Mainland Asian, Australo-Melanesian, sub-Saharan African and Native American.
As to how the [at least] 5 races based on molecular markers fit into the 8 population clusters based on the neutral craniofacial markers, 5 of the 8 craniofacial clusters correspond to the 5 races based on molecular markers. The three remaining craniofacial clusters comprise of India, Eskimo-Siberia and Jomon-Pacific. Extensive race mixing characterizes the India and Jomon-Pacific groups, and these groups cannot be assigned races in accordance with phylogeographic criteria, though the vast majority in each of these groups can be easily distingushed from other populations. The Eskimo-Siberia group was not included in the molecular studies that I have cited to support at least 5 races among humans, and this is part of the reason why I have been talking about at least 5 races.
You wrote:
Correlation analysis is used to show signifcant association and not significant differences between groups of OTUs.This helps in clustering them together.[correlation = association ].. Please consult a good stats manual…
Let us say that there are two groups and there is variation within each group on, say, 20 variables, each of which is normally distributed. The groups do not differ with respect to each variable, i.e., the trait distributions for all 20 variables are identical in either group. You are saying that cluster analysis of these 20 variables will in some such cases separate individuals, randomly and blindly drawn from both groups, into separate clusters. Find me one such example among humans; it doesn’t have to be 20 variables, but there should be at least 10 variables, and the cluster analysis should separate the groups based on at least 3 of the 10 variables or if you reference a study with a large number of variables, then the groups should be separated by at least 15% of the variables.
More importantly, if you look at the genetic and craniofacial data, not only is it clear that there is population clustering, it is also clear that there are statistically significant differences between populations with respect to several variables that go into the cluster analysis. Once again, download Howells’ data and see it for yourself. And, I will mention some such data shortly.
You asked whether I believe that Edwards has debunked Lewontin’s fallacy or whether he has debunked Lewontin’s theory as a fallacy. What theory are you talking about? Edwards debunked Lewontin’s fallacious conjecture rather than some theory proposed by Lewontin.
Anyway, you have become suspicious about my biological knowledge and have asked whether I am a biologist. I am not a biologist. I am a pimp and a high school dropout at that. Now, hopefully you, an esteemed scientist, will consider it beneath your dignity to debate me on biological issues and stop wasting my time.
Continued below.
Posted by J Richards on May 09, 2006, 01:02 AM | #
Malcolm A,
You wrote:
This is not that important and you maybe right...but when deciding on beauty on this thread, it is a “I said ; you said” situation ...
When you twist my words, I have to defend what I wrote, and when you no longer can play around, you just try to ignore my defense instead of acknowledging that you did twist my words.
I am not bringing up political correctness after the fact to explain why a Nordic woman did not win in a beauty contest, and unlike you who would not complain if a Nordic woman wins a beauty pageant, I will not be pleased if the Nordic woman is not attractive. Your talk about there being some validity to the aesthetic judgments in beauty pageants because of an international team of judges is pure absurdity. Just go through the pictures of the white women that have participated in recent international beauty pageants and see how attractive these women are, on average. Several of these women are unattractive, and this is all you need to see in order to conclude that these pageants are not about beauty.
What do you mean that we agree to disagree that Nordic women have finer facial features than upper caste South Asian women? How can there be any disagreement when it is clear that East Asian, aboriginal and Negroid admixture will make one’s facial features less fine, and upper caste Hindus have a considerable amount of such ancestry compared to Nordics. Your own selections show the Indian women to have more massive cheekbones, broader noses, thicker lips, a higher frequency of hooked noses, etc.
I am tired of having to repeatedly respond to why I don’t always use your pictures; your pictures are often too small; often overexposed, making it difficult to see the facial features; and obscured by hair or angle. It is appropriate for me to search for clear, non-overexposed pictures of these women to see their features. Thus, Mallika Sherawat is shown to have more massive cheekbones, thicker lips, a wider nose and less fine features than the Nordic woman that I have compared her to, all of which you ignore and point out, instead, that both these women have a pointy chin and a straight nose.
You have said that there are some people who can’t connect through the links right after quoting a passage by me that says that anyone can copy and paste the links to see the pictures for themselves. Are you retarded? Copy and Paste works. Besides, several of your links are clickable.
I am starting to wonder whether you lack a basic aesthetic sense. Your defense of the looks of Angelina Jolie and many other women in this thread is that some prominent organization or magazine labeled these women as very attractive. The look of an attractive woman speaks for itself and an attractive woman will look good from any angle. There is no need to have some authority label a woman attractive in order for us to see whether the woman is attractive.
Now you have linked to some pictures of Madhuri Dixit; 5 of them very small and one with a blondish hair dye and features obscured by hair, and ignored a picture of her that I posted in my entry. Anyway, Madhuri Dixit is easily beaten by Nordic women who are barely good looking.
And here is a picture of Madhuri Dixit showing her hooked nose.
You linked to a highly ranked beauty pageant contestant, Namrata Shirodkar, and mentioned a movie, Bride and Prejudice, where she appeared. Here is a screen capture of this movie, showing that Namrata Shirodkar (far right) has massive jaws and a hooked nose.
By the way, the seated woman is Aishwarya Rai.
This hook-nosed issue needs to be addressed formally.
In a study by Hanihara (cited above), the extent of upper nose projection was computed by dividing the simotic subtense by the simotic chord, and the values (standard deviation in parentheses) of some populations were: English, 53.5 (11.40); Punjab, 45.1 (10.86); Delhi, 42.3 (13.20); Bihar-Bengal, 42.3 (10.89); Assam-Sikkim 32.9 (12.17), Madras, 40.6 (10.13); Veddah, 39.7 (7.01). Punjab and Delhi are in the Northwestern part of India; Bihar-Bengal and Assam-Sikkim people are in the Northeastern part of India, Madras and Veddah people are in the Southern part of South Asia. Higher values imply a more projecting upper nose region. The Northeastern part of India has more Mongoloid influence, and it should not be surprising that the upper noses become flatter as one moves from the NW to NE part of India. Similarly, the SE Asiatic element becomes stronger as one moves from the NW to the Southern part of India, and correspondingly the upper nose gets flatter. The interesting thing to note is that even if you take the Punjab population, a light-skinned people that are genetically closer to Europeans than South Asians from other parts of India, the difference between a Northern European population (English) and the people from Punjab is close to one standard deviation, which is obviously statistically significant. This study only addressed the skull, but there are other studies that have addressed soft tissue features, and I will use the closest approximation to the English in another study, i.e., American whites, the majority of whom are Northern European.
The other study is: Farkas et al. International anthropometric study of facial morphology in various ethnic groups/races. J Craniofac Surg. 2005 Jul;16(4):615-46.
The Farkas et al. study had the following average values of nose lengths (p values for statistically significant differences in brackets): American white males, 53.0; American white females, 48.9; India males, 47.2 (p = 0.002); India females 43.7 (p = 0.0009). Thus, the India men and women had shorter noses.
The Farkas et al. study had the following average values of nose breadth (p values for statistically significant differences in brackets): American white males, 34.7; American white females, 31.4; India males, 37.9 (p = 0.008); India females 33.8 (0.01 < p < 0.05). Thus, the India men and women had broader noses
The inclination of the nose bridge (-2SD, +2SD in brackets) was: American white males, 31.6 (22.4, 40.8)); American white females, 30.0 (19.4, 40.6); India males, 32.5 (21.3, 43.7); India females 31.7 (22.5, 40.9).
Now, what do these values tell you? It is obvious that the frequency of uglier noses will be higher in India than in Northern Europe by virtue of a higher incidence in India of shorter noses (more characteristic of Australoids, Mongoloids and Negroids), broader noses (more characteristic of non-Europeans) and hooked noses (more characteristic of Middle Easterners, Central Asians).
Similar data can be shown for many other aspects of facial features. So don’t tell me that the assignment of South Asians to a separate cluster from that of whites does not reflect statistically significant differences between these groups. Additionally, the craniofacial measurements and known genetic composition easily allow one to infer which group among the best looking Nordics and the best looking South Asians looks better by your own standards. You have acknowledged that whites look better than East Asians and black Africans, and since it has been shown that the combination of East Asian, Negroid and Australoid/aboriginal elements is a large part of the genetics of South Asians (see, for instance, the DNAPrint Genomics profile above) and that Brahmins have extensively absorbed lower caste people into their gene pool, then it is obvious that the best looking Nordic women will leave the best looking upper caste Hindu women in dust. East Asian, Negroid and Australoid/aboriginal components are bound to make facial features less fine: noses broader, lips thicker, cheekbones more prominent, jaws more massive, etc., which is what we clearly see in your choices of Indian women compared to the Nordic women. Don’t tell me that this is not objective.
You have mentioned that I am not posting pictures of Nordic women that have been highly ranked in beauty pageants. I figured that I might as well contrast Namrata Shirodkar with a Nordic beauty pageant winner—Jennifer Hawkins, Miss Universe 2004—even though the Nordic isn’t that feminine, but she will do.
As far as the Victorian standards for the female physique go, who cares? Heterosexual men prefer a feminine physique in women now and this was also true in the Victorian era, and there is no way Aishwarya Rai’s physique could be the stuff of the fantasy of men who are aware of the existence of women with the kind of physique you see in the Nordic woman next to Aishwarya Rai. You mentioned Asha Parekh as a woman with a great physique, but I have not been able to find pictures of her physique.
Anyway, do not goddamned waste my time by citing poor sources.
Posted by IndianGirl on May 09, 2006, 05:41 AM | #
The interesting thing to note is that even if you take the Punjab population, a light-skinned people that are genetically closer to Europeans than South Asians from other parts of India
Who did this study? Punjabis in India are stereotypically known for having big noses, whether it be wide and bulbousy or gigantically hooked. No, I’m not trying to be rude, but relating them to white Europeans is just too funny. To me, I think they look more like semites. Trust me, I’m surrounded by Punjabis. Some do have a very slight Mongloid look, like the actress Juhi Chawla.
Punjabis may have a higher amount of people with lighter skin, but that doesn’t mean they look “more European.” Light skin can be a result of climate, and being a light-skinned Indian doesn’t mean that you’re going to have more European features, lol.
Don’t forget that Kashmir is North of Punjab. If you’re going to go by the “Punjabis are more related to Europeans logic,” then it would natural to say the same thing about Kashmiris and Uttaranchalis.
Don’t forget that there are certain sects spread out all over India, who have that light-skinned/light-eyed look (such as the South Indian Konkani Brahmins, Chitpavan Brahmins from Maharashtra, the Ptallu of Hydrabad, etc). I don’t know why people act as if Punjab is some sort of special region distinct from the rest of India.
In case you didn’t know J.R.-Aditi Gorivkar is a Chitpavan Brahmin. They are from the WesternCentral state, Maharashtra.
Posted by IndianGirl on May 09, 2006, 05:51 AM | #
Sharma
Sharmas are generally North-Indian Brahmins. They can be from Rajasthan, Punjab, UP (Uttar Pradesh), etc.
But you’re right, Indians do change their last names, especially in cases of re-marriage and adoption. A lot of lower-caste Hindus also change their last names, but I don’t think it’s that common for high-caste Indians to change their last names.
In our culture, it’s kind of weird for step-kids to have a different last name than the step-father. There is great emphasis on family values, so it’s natural that the step-kids adopt their step-father’s last name (even if he is from a different caste).
Somebody made mention about the low divorce rate among Indians. Just to let you know, a lot of divorced Indian women lie about being remarried and divorced. So, you can’t always tell who is lying and who is telling the truth.
They will tell their kids to tell everybody that their step-parent is their biological parent. They will not openly tell you that they have a step-parent, because it’s not acceptable to advertise such a thing.
Indians are like any other human beings, but they choose not to openly acknowledge their personal situations to the rest of the community.
Posted by J Richards on May 09, 2006, 07:06 AM | #
Indian girl,
The Punjab group includes samples from the Punjab-Kashmir region. On the other hand, your objection about the bulbous/prominent noses of people in Punjab is not applicable since this study assessed the upper nasal region, which is bony, rather than the fleshy part of the nose, which is what is bulbous (the study sampled skulls). You can see from the data that the upper nasals (bony structure) are more prominent in the Punjab-Kashmir region than in other parts of India, and this is consistent with other evidence, only part of which is lighter skin, for the greater European affiliation of NW India. You are, of course, right that upper caste Hindus, generally closer to Europeans than other Hindus, are scattered through other parts of India, but these people are a minority and do not undermine the general geographic trend of reduced European ancestry as one moves south and/or east of NW India. Besides, like you say that some people in Punjab look part Mongoloid, this is what you would expect since race mixing has taken place extensively in India and Mongoloid/aboriginal elements are present in NW Indians as well as upper caste Indians.
Thanks for the other information.
Posted by IndianGirl on May 10, 2006, 05:01 AM | #
On the other hand, your objection about the bulbous/prominent noses of people in Punjab is not applicable since this study assessed the upper nasal region, which is bony, rather than the fleshy part of the nose, which is what is bulbous (the study sampled skulls). You can see from the data that the upper nasals (bony structure) are more prominent in the Punjab-Kashmir region than in other parts of India, and this is consistent with other evidence, only part of which is lighter skin, for the greater European affiliation of NW India.
I’m not talking about the upper nasal region. Even if you do have a higher nose bride, the bottom part can be gigantically hooked or broad.
Here are some pictures of Punjabis, who fit the “typical Punjabi” look in India. The protoypical Punjabi look is hard to definte in words, but you can tell by looking at their overall face. Do they look “ European” or “fine featured” to you? I don’t think so.
Famous author Deepak Chopra.
Punjabi actor Dharmendra
http://movies.indiainfo.com/tales/images/dharmendra.jpg
Actor Rishi Kapoor
A Punjabi boy
http://images.ratedesi.com/gallery/164333_1139836179.jpg
http://www.ratedesi.com/view.php?id=138791
Random Punjabi Girls
http://www.ratedesi.com/view.php?id=2537
http://www.ratedesi.com/view.php?id=2537
Were all of these people surveyed in the study NATIVE PUNJABIS? Just because you live in Punjab and Kashmir doesn’t mean that you are a true Punjabi or Kashmiri. Indians have migrated constantly for hundreds of years.
There are South Indians who are descendants of North Indians, and there Eastern Indians who are actually descendants of NW Indians. However, these people follow the culture of whatever state they live in. So, a Konkani Brahmin would consider himself South Indian (even though his ancestors were North Indian). A Rajput from the Eastern state of Bihar would consider herself a Bihari (even though Rajputs were originally from Rajasthan).
Punjab and Kashmir aren’t the only states that make up NW India. Rajasthan is also a NW state. Also, that study only sampled people from certain states. What about places like Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Uttaranchal, and Uttar Pradesh? A lot of people in UP/Uttaranchal and MP are actually of NW descent.
But like I said before, these people don’t identify as NW Indians. They don’t live in NW India, speak the language or follow the customs. People don’t always base their ethnicity on their genetic roots. Indians often base their ethnicity on the language they speak, what religious customs they follow, the food they eat, etc.
Posted by IndianGirl on May 10, 2006, 05:16 AM | #
I accidentally doubled the pic of the Punjabi girl.
Here are some more.
http://images.ratedesi.com/gallery/101970_1118297827.jpg
http://images.ratedesi.com/members/166814.jpg?42
http://www.ratedesi.com/view.php?id=172030
Posted by Malcolm A on May 10, 2006, 05:18 AM | #
Hi J.R.
Light hearted banter helps make the thread interesting. Sorry about the spelling and grammatical errors in my posts caused by some rather hurried writing on my part. The reason for inquirng whether you were a Biologist or NOT is not to undermine your integrity, but to gauge the level of response that I could come up with. Helps understand where we stand.
1.
JR, if you are NOT a biologist, then your ability to sort through the morass of advanced reaseach papers and extract the relevant citations is either quite amazing or very suspect. It may well be that you have no proper undestanding of any of these articles but are trying to bluff your way through by just posting rather ‘high sounding’ but totally unrelated articles, charts etc., that prove nothing at all. Your reference to Lewontin’s Fallacy, insistence on empirical data when the citations provided by you are not related to the topic at hand and your failure to grasp the nuances of statistical / biological theory could spell trouble in regards to your ability to defend your theories.
Lewontin’s fallacy : Please read the following para.which proves it was Lewontin’s view that was debunked and NOT Lewontins fallacy
Finally, geneticist Richard Lewontin observing that 85 percent of human variation occurs within populations, and not between populations, argued that neither “race” nor “subspecies” were appropriate or useful ways to describe populations (Lewontin 1973). This view is purportedly debunked as Lewontin’s Fallacy. [www.biocrawler.com/encyclopedia/Race ]-
a) Craniofacial citations etc..
You cite Brace et al’s anthropological data on 24 craniofacial measurement as relevant to the topic, but their conclusion shows that the objective was to prove that the term Mongoloid race is not appropriate ( ( some of his co-authors are Mongoloids ; so this is not a surprise !). Also consider the craniofacial measurements of a whale as opposed to those of an elephant. The whale’s would be much more closer to those of a fish, rather than the elephant’s, by way of dorso-lateral flattening etc., BUT the elephant and the whale cluster together under class Mammalia ( which is genetically very distant from class Pisces ( Fishes ) ! In this context, terms such as parallel / convergent evolution, analogous and homologous structures etc., are important.
The Cambodians and Burmese who are much more darker (slightly admixed w/. Dravidian caucasians) than the Japs or the Chinese, are still classified as Mongoloids ( Hope you won’t contest that one too ). You say Kate Beckinsale has Burmeses genes, but what race would she be presently classified under. I’ll bet it would be Caucasian. This is why the degree of admixture is important in classification. We are all admixed to some extent. Doesn’t necessarily affect one’s classification.
b) Genetic evidence given by Rosenberg ( 993 microsattelitles ? ) and others...
The most important thing to look for when evaluating a publication is the conclusion/s [ is the term caucasoids mentioned specifically, and if so have they conclusively stated that Indians are NOT caucasoids ? ]. Then we must check the degree of acceptance the publication has received from the scientific community. Have their recommendations being adopted by the Zoological society and included in modern texts etc etc.. Without such an evaluation, just citing a paper proves nothing.
Although you say that you have provided empirical evidence , it appears that you have not, as the clustering in Rosenberg’s article is clearly Epidemiological rather than taxonomic in nature, and is full of holes. I have already shown that Rosenberg’s clustering is neither comprehensive nor conclusive. There is NOT a single reference as to how the Negorids, Caucasoids, Mongoloids etc would fit or not fit into his scheme.
Citing your own words, ‘ at least 5 races’ and ‘ 5 or more races’ etc., I must say that these by themselves are an indication of the uncertain nature of this citation by Rosenberg et al. As I said, when suggesting a system of classifciation( if that is indeed what they are doing ) you cannot arbitrarily say at least 5 races etc. What does that mean ? Is it 6 , 7, 8 , or 100 ? He also admits further data is needed. (ii) It is rather strange that you cite 5 works but only 2 conclusions. Did Nei et al (1993), Bowcock et al( 1994), Rosenberg et al (2002 )and (2005) all point to ‘ 5 or more races ‘ OR did they each reach some other conclusions(if so please quote them separately ). Seems like you haven’t even read these papers properly before quoting them.
The problem w/ Rosenberg’s reputation is further discussed below, and confirms my questions to you about holes in his technique
....These distinctions of research aims and scale can be seen by the example of three major research papers published since 2002: Rosenberg et al. (2002), Serre & Pääbo (2004), and Tang et al. (2005). Both Rosenberg et al. and Serre & Pääbo study global genetic variation, but they arrive at different conclusions. Serre & Pääbo attribute their differing conclusions to experimental design
[ REF : http://experts.about.com/e/r/ra/Race.htm ]
c) Authorities, citations etc...
I must point out that there are ‘publications’ and then there are ‘publications,’ due to the ‘publish or perish’ syndrome affecting academics. Everyone form undergrad to grad students, as well as research and teaching staff are publishing 1000s of papers for a variety of reasons.. But all of these are NOT valued at the same level. Eg Darwin is considered an authority on Evolution for obvious reasons many years after his death. Lamarck is NOT. Therefore, anyone publishing a paper supporting ‘ Inheritance of acquired characters’ will not get the same respect. Same goes for Authority. You can cite 10 papers against my 1, but you will still NOT prove your point depending on the quality and reputation of the people you cite. This is why numbers don’t matter in the citation game.
It is in this context that I suggested Cavalli as the foremost authority on this matter, as his book is now accepted as the definitive work on this subject See ( d) below. Highly esteemed Journals such as NATURE, SCIENCE etc., reguraly call upon Prof Cavalli-Sforza to write reviews which is an honor extended to only the foremost and top experts/ authorities in their fields.
2.
a) . Caucasoid : Defintion and Scope
Definition : ......racial classification used as a part of a system including Negroid, Mongoloid, Australoid etc..Defined with a pattern of physical traits typical of humans indigenous to regions centered in Europe, North Africa, West Asia, South Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh ) & some of Central Asia(View Typical caucoasid skull ) : (b) caucasian race : humans whose ancestry can be traced back to Europe, Middle East, South Asia and some of Central Asia and N Africa. [note: The suffix ‘oid’ indicates “a similarity, not necessarily exact, to something else ]....source : http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/caucasoid 2005
b) Genetic evidence for evolutionary relationships between Europeans and Indians
Oppenheimer, Stephen; (2003) “The Real Eve: Modern Man’s Journey out of Africa”
In this book, OppenHeimer, provides evidence that the M17 mutation which specifies the R1A haplotype common to both European and Indian populations originated in India, among Primitive caucasians and then traveled out to Europe and returned again with the so called Aryans. Thus, the M17 marker is clear and present evolutionary evidence that Indians and Europeans had common ancestry.
Bamshad M., Kivisild T., et al; (2001) Genetic evidence on the origins of Indian caste populations, Virus Research 75(2): 95-106, Jun.
The following genetic evidence of common genes shared by Indians and Europeans again prove evolutionary relationships
Y DNA : R1a1 haplotype, which is an Aryan haplogroup with a very high frequency in Europe and Central Asia, and found at a high frequency among East European populations, is also commnoly found among many Indian races., ii ] Y-DNA : R1b Western European Haplotype which is most common haplotype in Europe is found among North Indians, iii ] Y DNA : L haplotype is another Aryan marker commonly found in Greek, Turk, Lebanese, Iranian and Indians and present in Indo-european spoken areas. iii ] J2 marker : Originated in northern fertile crescent ( above Iraq) and migrated into India iv ] MtDNA Western European markers such as U etc., are very common in Indians, vi ] Punjabi Jats have more haplotypes in common with Germans, Balts, and Slavs ( 2- 10% , around 1- 5 haplotypes, mainly R1a1) than even with the neighbouring Indo-Iranians ( Bamshard et al 2001).These are all common to Aryan gene pool and all possibilities populations ( Bamshard et al 2001) .
Wells Spencer ; (2003) ‘The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey’, Princeton University Press. .
Positively proved that there was an Aryan migration into India as evidenced by the temporal and spatial distribution of the R1A haplotype.
Part 2 follows
Posted by Malcolm A on May 10, 2006, 05:24 AM | #
Part 2 contd....
L L Cavalli-Sforza, A Piazza, P Menozzi, and J Mountain, Department of Genetics, Stanford University, CA 94305.Reconstruction of human evolution: bringing together genetic, archaeological, and linguistic data. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1988 August; 85(16): 6002-6006.
Created genetic and linguistic map using Clustering and average Linkage analysis using Nei’s genetic distances.....
Caucasoids form a fairly tight group consisting of 12 populations, 5 of which were pooled as Europeans.... ( Please see map which shows the others 7 as Lapps, South Indian (Dravidian), Indian, Sardinian, Iranian, S.W. Asian, Berber (N.African)....) The map also shows the linguistic connection by grouping 8 populations {European (5), Indian, Sardinian and Iranian} under Indo-European speaking branch
[ii] Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza et al; PNAS | August 15, 1988 | vol. 85 | no. 16 | 6002-6006 Reconstruction of Human Evolution: Bringing Together Genetic, Archaeological, and Linguistic Data
.....The first split in the phylogenetic tree separates Africans from non-Africans, and the second separates two major clusters, one corresponding to Caucasoids, East Asians, Arctic populations, and American natives, and the other to Southeast Asians (mainland and insular), Pacific islanders, and New Guineans and Australians.....
[iii] Luigi Luca cavalli-Sforza et all The History and Geography of Human Genes. [4] Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca et al (1995). Princeton University Press.
This is Cavalli-Sforza’s own description of this map that is the capstone of his half century of labor in human genetics:
The color map of the world shows very distinctly the differences that we know exist among the continents: Africans (yellow), Caucasoids (green), Mongoloids ... (purple), and Australian Aborigines (red). The map does not show well the strong Caucasoid component in northern Africa, but it does show the unity of the other Caucasoids from Europe, and in West, South, and much of Central Asia.”
c) Correlation analysis in clustering
Let us say that there are two groups and there is variation within each group on, say, 20 variables, distributions for all 20 variables are identical in either group. You are saying that cluster analysis of these 20 variables will in some such cases separate individuals, randomly and blindly drawn from both groups, into separate clusters. Find me one such example among humans; it doesn’t have to be 20 variables, but there should be at least 10 variables, and the cluster analysis should separate the groups based on at least 3 of the 10 variables or if you reference a study with a large number of variables, then the groups should be separated by at least 15% of the variables.
??? Where did I say this ? [ie underlined portion ?].I was just trying to explain that correlation Coefficients indicate significance of association rather than that of differences. I hope you are not trying to test me or mislead/confuse me by just writing some gobbledygook!
I will give you a very simple example regarding correlation as your understanding of the subject seems to be poor....If data sets A, B and C are assessed for correlation and it is found that groups A &B are significantly correlated as compared to A & C that does not indicate that A & C are significantly different.but just that A & B show more association [cluster closely ] than A & C.
3. Real Life situations
a) Here is an example of one very puzzled “caucasian” who went for DNA profiling and found that he has relatives and ancestors in the most uexpected of places, extending well into India, in his own words
..... My genetic migration :
I finally got my information back from the genographic project..[ Note : his genetic group was M17, a europeanoffshoot that appeared 10000 years ago....]....I figured I would be on a European branch, but M17 is much more ... This means that somewhere in my family history is a group of Central Asian descendants, possibly as far south as Iran or India. That is pretty crazy to think about.......
[http://www.trappermarkelz.com/2005/07/my_genetic_migr.html]
b) US Supreme Court’s Ruling in the matter of People Vs Baghat Singh Thind (1937):
US Supreme Court agrees that ....Indians were Caucasians and that anthropologists considered them to be of the same race as white Americans
4.Beauty matters
a) Pageants are NOT about beauty :
JR, no one believs that pageants are not about beauty. Do some ugly fat women goto these NO. So it is about beautiful young women who are also smart and savy..
b) What do you mean that we agree to disagree that Nordic women have finer facial features than upper caste South Asian women? How can there be any disagreement when it is clear that East Asian, aboriginal and Negroid admixture will make one’s facial features less fine, and upper caste Hindus have a considerable amount of such ancestry compared to Nordics. Your own selections show the Indian women to have more massive cheekbones, broader noses, thicker lips, a higher frequency of hooked noses, etc.
Says who ?.... you !!
JR stop kidding yourself. If Indians weren’t a threat why would you even start to compare our women w/ them. You started this whole morass by posting Indians for comparison instead of Chinese or Latiinos. NOt me or anyone else.
c) I am tired of having to repeatedly respond to why I don’t always use your pictures; your pictures are often too small; often overexposed, making it difficult…
As if anyone would believe that !
I really don’t mind, as your great FEAR of posting my links alone proves my point. I rather enjoy your fear psychosis induced paralysis when it comes to posting my links..
d) The look of an attractive woman speaks for itself and an attractive woman will look good from any angle. There is no need to have some authority label a woman attractive in order for us to see whether the woman is attractive.... Anyway, Madhuri Dixit is easily beaten by Nordic women who are barely good looking.
....says you !
e) Similar data can be shown for many other aspects of facial features. So don’t tell me that the assignment of South Asians ....As far as the Victorian standards for the female physique go, who cares? etc etc...Anyway, do not goddamned waste my time by citing poor sources
I think I am beginning to like you a lot! We could start a comedy club !!
You managed to make even namrata look terrible and that’s an achievement. Here’s what Jack Mathews of NY Daily News had to say about Ash Rai and namrata
.......while Rai is getting all the attention - she’s been called the world’s most beautiful woman in the world by no less an authority than Julia Roberts - I am not sure she is prettier than Namrata shirodkar.....
Jack Matthews, New York Daily News; Feb 11, 2005; pg. 51
Anyway, for your viewing pleasure , here is a very straight nosed Mandira Bedi and another stunner from Bollywood Mahima Chaudry
Mandira Bedi
http://www.indiatarget.com/stills/slide_show/mandira1.jpg
Mahima Chowdry
http://www.chalo.net/cgi-bin/mahima.pl?mahima0020.jpg
http://www.chalo.net/cgi-bin/mahima.pl?mahima0006.jpg
http://www.chalo.net/cgi-bin/mahima.pl?mahima0004.jpg
http://www.chalo.net/cgi-bin/mahima.pl?mahima0057.jpg
http://www.chalo.net/cgi-bin/mahima.pl?mahima0015.jpg
FEAR OF POSTING LINKS SYNDROME got you now. ??
Cheers
Posted by Chom Fa on May 10, 2006, 01:01 PM | #
You people are seriously scary
Posted by Malcolm A on May 10, 2006, 02:14 PM | #
Hi JB
their names not their race, age, sexual orientation, occupation, whether they have investments in Revlon, etc. For all I know the men on the panel could be homosexuals or metrosexuals working for fashion magazines.
This statement is so crazy it is not even worth replying to. Are you suggesting that the panels are full of homosexuals. most panesl have at least 30 to 50% women !
I’ve seen more beautiful women on the streets of small canadian towns than in the pages of glossy Revlon sponsored magazines
True. But beauty pageants also attract only those considered beauties. As I told JR there are better looking wone than Ashwarya Rai in India !
3. Scientists can explain stuff to the best of their ability but unless the person trying yo learn has a basic knwoeldge of science it woufn’t work, especially when one is discussin advanced Biology such as Genetics at the PhD and above level.
4. The Map does not show the distribution in terms of race but in terms of related groups. You can see that India, all the way upto Scandinavia, has the same color ( blue/green ). For an interpretation of the map you have to read Cavalli’s The History and Geography of The Human gene
Cheers
Posted by C. M. on May 10, 2006, 02:36 PM | #
“The Map does not show the distribution in terms of race but in terms of related groups. You can see that India, all the way upto Scandinavia, has the same color ( blue/green ).”.
This map is hugely flawed: the reason why scandinavia has the same color blue as China or India like Malcolm A. propose is that the area of the Baltics and North Scandinavia has large percentage of haplotype N3 which is a sister clade of haplotype O, the main haplotype of Han Chinese. I Know that in the Baltics and Scandinavia, you have the largest amount of blondes and blue eyed hotties. These areas have parental haplotype N3 over 50%, I think for Finnish something like 60% or 70%. Yeah ironic isn’t it that areas with N3 have the largest amount of blondes and blue eyes.
You should ask yourself where nordics got their better looks from, if “European” means the same thing as southern European or Mediterenean, people in Northern Europe should look the same as Italians. But a Italian woman with dyed blonde hair and coloured contacts still looks Italian, so it’s not the pigmentation, their facial features will still give them away.
I think the whole concept of what is “European” is kindda vague because a person like Cavalli-Sforza think middle easterners are “European” too, but that is because the South of Europe has absorbed large number of middle easterners in past. Like haplotype J. I think it all depends from the person involved.
Posted by C. M. on May 10, 2006, 02:53 PM | #
I have seen other maps too of genetic relationship.
There are of course differences, in interpretation of data.
I think Europe must be considered as a receiver of signals from Asia. Signal means genes. As we consider the main east and west European haplotype R1a and r1b which are derived from M173 which in turn is a derivative of the even older M45 which is Mongoloid, then you can actually say that Europeans are actually mutated Mongoloids going all the way to the neolithics when farmers from Middle east migrated into Europe with haplotype J.
I will be very clear about this: northern Europeans are less affected by neolithic middle eastern farmers so they retain their look of paleolithic ancestors.
Swedes should look like Italians but they don’t. Dutch should look as Spaniards if there is something like “European”, but they don’t.
I think Europe can be compred like a street, your neighbour is not necessarily your relative. Europe is like a street where strangers find a home. Nordics are derived Mongoloids or mutatede mongoloids and southeren Europeans are more like middle easterners.
Posted by C. M. on May 10, 2006, 03:25 PM | #
This Malcolm A posts alot of bullshit. Indians are just blend of middle eastern and australoid and they don’t contribute to any region in genes.
I think all the links he posted are frauds like that of Bamshad of university of Utah.
I doubt that you can find R1a in India at all, of maybe a few that descended from the Macedonian soldiers of Alexander.
R1a is eastern european haplotype.
Like I have explained earlier on R1a and R1b are actually Mongoloid so how Malcolm can claim something that clearly is not his is beyond me.
Maybe some upper caste Indians got r1a from Mogul period too (Mongols), R1a is not unusual among manchu Chinese, a tribe in Northern China.
Too much old stuff or propaganda from Malcolm A.
There is not such thing as “aryan”, because if he meant “Aryan” is speaker of indo-european language, then he should look for the origin in middle east, because the original indo european languages originates from Anatolia.
Paleolithic Europeans did not speak “indo european” at all, this language family is just 9000 years old from the neolithic farmers from anatolia.
People of this language family migrated west into europe in neolithics and they migrated into India about 1200 B.C.
So the relation of these languages can be explained easily.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 11, 2006, 12:45 AM | #
“You cite Brace et al’s anthropological data on 24 craniofacial measurements as relevant to the topic, but their conclusion shows the objective was to prove that the term Mongoloid race is not appropriate (some of his co-authors are Mongoloids, so this is not a surprise!).” (—Malcolm A., at upper fourth of comment of May 10, 5:18 AM)
Why isn’t it a surprise? You’re saying an objective of Mongoloid scientists is to prove that the term Mongoloid race is not appropriate? If so, why is that their objective? Is it that they dislike the term “Mongoloid”? Is it that they join the world’s Jewish academics who’ve been bizarrely denying that there are races since around the 1880s (something which is the same as asserting that two plus two equals five)?
“Are you suggesting that the [beauty-contest judging] panels are full of homosexuals? Most panels have at least 30% to 50% women!” (—Malcolm, May 10, 2:14 PM)
Women, who are without exception disastrous beauty-pageant judges, join homosexual men in not knowing what makes a woman beautiful: they always misjudge this, for reasons ranging from not having a neuronal or hormonal clue as to what attracts men in women’s faces, bodies, or clothing to allowing sympathy for or antipathy toward a contestant’s perceived personality to prompt them to call her beautiful when she’s appalling or vice-versa, to following the dictates of PC absolutely, unquestioningly, and even completely unselfconsciously (are not even aware they’re doing it), to sheer jealousy of beautiful women in those instances where they (dimly but) accurately sense they are in the presence of such.
As for male homos, they are atrocious judges of beauty pageants for the reason, oft-alluded-to in this site’s threads, that a crucifix repulses a vampire less than feminine beauty repulses homosexual men, who are attracted to the exact opposite: masculinity in women’s faces, bodies, and clothing.
Judging panels ought to consist solely of non-leftist heterosexual men at least half to two-thirds of whom are happily married: “non-leftist” because leftist men’s ability to judge womanly beauty is also impaired (in some ways along the same lines as that of homos), and “happily married” because unmarried men are mere boys where women are concerned, lacking in appreciation of the deeper, realer ways in which women are beautiful: a bachelor of thirty-five judges women’s beauty still more or less the way he did at fourteen. He hasn’t grown up where women are concerned, just as a spinster or old maid hasn’t grown up where men are concerned (or where children are concerned either, often enough).
Women don’t know which women are most attractive any more than men know which men are. If there were beauty pageants for men—“handsome pageants”—clearly men would have no place whatsoever on the judging panels which would properly consist solely of women.
“You people are seriously scary.” (—Chom Fa)
Your name suggests it’s possible you’re a Chinaman, Mr. Chom. If so, does your nation’s “racialist” preference for the Chinese race, its policy of strictly closed borders where racially-incompatible immigration is concerned, and its steadfast espousal of others of the things that scare you about us scare you about it? I can only assume so. You’re scared-stiff of the Chinese people and of China. Absolutely terrified of them. It’s sad for a Chinaman to feel that way—but at least you’re being consistent ... (You are being consistent ... aren’t you, sir? ... I’m sure you are ... Yes, yes, I feel certain of it ....)
Posted by JB on May 11, 2006, 02:28 AM | #
Malcolm:
Same goes for Authority. You can cite 10 papers against my 1, but you will still NOT prove your point depending on the quality and reputation of the people you cite. This is why numbers don’t matter in the citation game.
It is in this context that I suggested Cavalli as the foremost authority on this matter, as his book is now accepted as the definitive work on this subject See ( d) below. Highly esteemed Journals such as NATURE, SCIENCE etc., reguraly call upon Prof Cavalli-Sforza to write reviews which is an honor extended to only the foremost and top experts/ authorities in their fields.
numbers don’t matter but the same goes for reputation. It’s not the authority of the author or researcher or its reputation that matters it is the validity of their work. I would have thought all scientists would be aware of that.
Also scientific journals aren’t free of politics. Their editors aren’t necessarily flawless open minded scientific thinkers
Leading scientific journals ‘are censoring debate on global warming’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml
A separate team of climate scientists, which was regularly used by Science and the journal Nature to review papers on the progress of global warming, said it was dropped after attempting to publish its own research which raised doubts over the issue.
Posted by Jules on May 11, 2006, 09:02 AM | #
So who was the one who wanted me to email them my picture?? I already know you will think I am good looking, so am not worried about that. I will make some type of arrangement so that you may view them since you are so desperate to see.
And unlike most of you, I don’t have time to frequent this board, however, the nordic evolution caught my eyes as when I think of Nordic, I think only of Norway, Sweden, Finland, to which my descendents originally are from
I dont think all mixes are good looking, I have seen some mixes that are hideous, asian white or white latin, if you are ugly youre ugly. And I am not racist in the least when I say this, but I think most Hindus are very hideous, however, and even when tehy are mixed, they are still ugly, too ethnic.
I know that sounds brutal, but thats my honest opinion. Aisha Rai, sp? is very hindu lookig for me and not pretty in my standards, there was some or few indians up there that I thought attractive, but dont you Losers up there worry about it, because even the ugliest Indian woman would never mix with blood that they considered trash, meaning some of you up there,
Now for the ones who liked Keira Knightly,
Charlize Theron, Catherine Z Jones and Kate Beckinsale, you have good tastes and high standards.
To all of you, I feel sorry that your one desire is to have a nordic girl in your life, well, you know, let me tell you a secret to winning any womans heart. All you have to do is have a good heart, not be so racist even when you want to be, and perhaps even the cruelest of women will give you a chance. Yes I am very cruel, but occasionally I meet peple that I can tell are real, and I treat them good. The rest of the world, I jsut use all you stupid losers, because in the end, thats what you really are.
Posted by Malcolm A on May 11, 2006, 03:00 PM | #
Hi C.M.
This map is hugely flawed: the reason why scandinavia has the same color blue as China or India like Malcolm A. propose is that the area of the Baltics and North Scandinavia has large percentage of haplotype N3 which is a sister clade of haplotype O, the main haplotype of Han Chinese
I believe I have already explained to my fellow posters here, that unless you are a scientist , you would not be able to decipher some of the stuff here, and more and more, that appears to be the case.
What Cavalli did with the map is trace evolutionary relationships using clustering studies and his conclusions based on the map are clear in the statemnt about the UNITY OF CAUACSOIDS FROM EUROPE...WEST, SOUTH and MUCH OF CENTRAL ASIA
As I have admitted here, I am NOT a Geneticist ( population Biologist - Pect Control w/ particular reference to economic thresholds and injury levels of cotton pests ) but I have taken enough 500/600 level courses in Genetics to be able to decipher the science in these articles.
,2I think the whole concept of what is “European” is kindda vague because a person like Cavalli-Sforza think middle easterners are “European” too
Displays ignorance of science right there. Cavalli is only stating genetic facts that prove most of these races fall under the larger group identified as caucasoids. Thats all.
e.i. Elephants and whales look different but fall under the larger group mammalia as opposed to say Pisces ( fish ). Thats at the class level whereas cavalli is comparing at the race ( sub spps ) level.
3
. think all the links he posted are frauds like that of Bamshad of university of Utah.
Why is Bamshad a fraud and NOT you ( matter of opinion !)? There is an error in that BTW. ONLY the statements followed by ref to Bamshad are from Bamshads work. The references above that are just a general compilation from my own notes.
4. R1a is eastern european haplotype. Like I have explained earlier on R1a and R1b are actually Mongoloid so how Malcolm can claim something that clearly is not his is beyond me.
Ridiculous ! Now I am beginning to lose respect for you. Read Spencer Wells, Oppenheimer. etc etc who are real geneticists and you will know better (vis a vis R1A known as the Aryan gene )
5. There is not such thing as “aryan”, because if he meant “Aryan” is speaker of indo-european language
Aryan = proto Indo European speaking ancestral population. Now represented by it’s many descendants in Europe, Iran India etc..
?6. Why isn’t it a surprise? You’re saying an objective of Mongoloid scientists is to prove that the term Mongoloid race is not appropriate
You misunderestood ! I was just tryin to prove to JR that the purpose of the article was not what he thought it was.
.7. numbers don’t matter but the same goes for reputation. It’s not the authority of the author or researcher or its reputation that matters it is the validity of their work
Reputation is built up on validity. Validity has nothing to do with integrity. A researcher may do good work and come up w/ a wrong conclusion. BUt if your work has been consistently accepted as valid by the community in general, your validity based reputation is built up. Cavalli’ is one such person.
Cheers
Posted by C. M. on May 11, 2006, 04:12 PM | #
“statemnt about the UNITY OF CAUACSOIDS FROM EUROPE...WEST, SOUTH and MUCH OF CENTRAL ASIA”
Bullshit, ask Cavalli Sforza what he meant, his answer will be he took the haplotyping. Russia is in full blue too as is China and a whole bunch of other Eurasian countries. Your assumption that India would be the same as Finland is rediculous. The map is hugely flawed, if he meant “caucasoid”, how come India isn’t green, or arab countires are green etc. The whole map is inconsistent.
“Read Spencer Wells, Oppenheimer. etc etc who are real geneticists and you will know better (vis a vis R1A known as the Aryan gene )”
Crap!
there is a aryan gene, you mean the gene of the language “indo european”, it’s haplotype J. Not R1a because a whole bunch of people in Siberia would be “Aryans” too while they speak Uralic languages.
“Aryan = proto Indo European speaking ancestral population. Now represented by it’s many descendants in Europe, Iran India etc.. “
I think you are American: your mixing up of “aryan” with “European” would explain your ignorance. Of course the proto Indo European speaking population did not speak the current languages! Bask is the sole survivor of paleolithic Europe. Indo-European languages is just as import from middle east like the sheep, wheat, goats and vines from the middle eastern farmers in neolithics.
Bamshad is a fraud because his work does not show the scientific relevance nor the sincerity.
If somebody pays you money to publish that a cow is actually a moose, would you take the money?
Brahmins are related to Iranians, I cannot recall that Iranians are the same as Europeans, surely they don’t look the same to me.
Yeah your take of mammals like whale and cow is very clever but then you should include Japanese too as caucasoid.
I have this to say: I once saw a white male with a south Asian wife and their kids, the kids look as their mum so it means that south Asians and Europeans are the same. I also saw a white male with a East Asian woman, the kid, a girl looks like a ordinary white kid with dark brown hair. If Japanese or Chinese are a different race, then how come the breeding results are more closely matched with breeding of other Europeans, how come offspring from Europeans and South Asians look middle eastern? Yet you claim that South Asians are the same as Europeans. How come another race like Chinese have breeding results looking more closely to breeding as with other Europeans? Of course you can say that it is coincidence, but I have also seen East asian breeding with whites, the kids had blonde hair.
How come South Asians breeding with whites produce arab looking kids if they are the same race?
Posted by C. M. on May 11, 2006, 04:17 PM | #
Ï have to correct one of my sentence:
“the kids look as their mum so it means that south Asians and Europeans are the same”
It should be of course: the kids look as their mum so it means that south Asians and Europeans aren’t the same.
Posted by Jules on May 11, 2006, 06:56 PM | #
Fred,
So I take it you think the other women I named are attractive except for one, catherine Z JOnes, Wow 4 out of 5 women that you think are good looking that I mentioned? So needless to say, your puny thoughts of Catherine and trying to say that if I thought she was good looking says much of how I must look. Yet Ironically you fail to quote that the other 4 you find attractive, so what that means, is I must be extremely goodlooking then if that is your silly logic.
You must be some ugly FAT old pervert who have nothing better to do, poor thing. I AM POSITIVELY SURE you are not married nor do you have a gf, no decent girl would be with you SAILOR!! Obviously you go to Thailand and Rio de janiero to screw with the poor little children there, pedophiles like you should be locked up!! Wish they could kill all the pedophiles.
Why dont you post your picture hon, you boring old fart!! Guess you are too insecure of that lard to be showing anything huh?? I already offered to send someone my pic, so I am not afraid to be judged in any form. Beauty is truly in the eyes of the beholder. Im sure if I was nicer to you, you would be be on the ground groveling.
I can only find humor in your funny comments above, thank you for making my day, because it did make me laugh, I give you that! Oh yes from a high class gal to another high class gal, Fred you are one testy bitch! thats right baby, I said you are a bitch only because you act like one. I hope you’re not gay.
Posted by Malcolm A on May 12, 2006, 02:19 AM | #
Bullshit, ask Cavalli Sforza what he meant, his answer will be he took the haplotyping. Russia is in full blue too as is China and a whole bunch of other Eurasian countries. Your assumption that India would be the same as Finland is rediculous. The map is hugely flawed, if he meant “caucasoid”, how come India isn’t green, or arab countires are green etc. The whole map is inconsistent
..AND you are a Geneticist, to know what Cavalli Sforza meant when he said that the map shows the UNITY of CAUCASOIDS FROM EUROPE...AND SOUTH ASIA ?
I am sure he meant what he wrote because otherwise he would have corrected it before publication!
2.Crap!
there is a aryan gene, you mean the gene of the language “indo european”, it’s haplotype J. Not R1a because a whole bunch of people in Siberia would be “Aryans” too while they speak Uralic languages
R1a and its successor R1a1 can be traced from the Caucasus to India through Iran ! As this route coincides with that taken by the invaders who called themslves Aryans ( see Vedic and Iranian literature ; i.e. “ I am Darius; an Aryan ; the son of an Aryan “ Ancient Iranian rock edict). It does also coincide w/ the Indo European laguage speakers. Sure it is in Russia to as it spread from the Caucasus to begin with but broke into 2 groups.
3.I think you are American: your mixing up of “aryan” with “European” would explain your ignorance. Of course the proto Indo European speaking population did not speak the current languages! Bask is the sole survivor of paleolithic Europe. Indo-European languages is just as import from middle east like the sheep, wheat, goats and vines from the middle eastern farmers in neolithics
The only thing correct in all of this nonsense is the first statement. I am American.
4. Bamshad is a fraud because his work does not show the scientific relevance nor the sincerity.
How would you know ? You are NOT a scientist ; are you ?
5. Yeah your take of mammals like whale and cow is very clever but then you should include Japanese too as caucasoid.
This statement makes a little better sense. Yes the Japs do look different and are in a diferent group, but thats why I said to JR that any one set of data like craniofacial measurements etc aren’t sufficient to separate races or any other taxa.
We need Evolutionary/genetic ( Most imp ), backed up by paleontological, morphological, anatomical, physiological and Biochemical evidence supported by anthropological, linguistic and historical facts to really trace race relationships. This is why Cavalli always backs up his data with language connections where available.
If Japanese or Chinese are a different race, then how come the breeding results are more closely matched with breeding of other Europeans, how come offspring from Europeans and South Asians look middle eastern? Yet you claim that South Asians are the same as Europeans. How come another race like Chinese have breeding results looking more closely to breeding as with other Europeans
....AND how come time appears different on a meteor than on earth. Ask Einstein to explain the theory of relativity !
Answering all your questions here, involves a whole 300 level course in Genetics at the undergrad level. This is why I say those who are not familiar with science should keep out of this discussion
Posted by J Richards on May 12, 2006, 08:31 AM | #
Jules,
For once I am pleased to see you write, “And I am not racist in the least when I say this, but I think most Hindus are very hideous, however, and even when tehy are mixed, they are still ugly, too ethnic.” Malcolm A. asked me to refer to your opinion on Indian women because of its unbiased nature, and I am glad you wrote this.
Anyway, if you want me to see your pictures, here are two ways of going about it. Either you email it to us by clicking on the contact link (top of page) and getting the email address from there, or give me approval to contact you by email (I can use the email address you have used to post comments here as long as it is valid). I will need two pictures from you, a close up of your face and a picture of your physique. In both pictures you should be holding a sign that reads “Racists will burn in Hell!” In the picture that shows your physique, you should be holding this sign with one hand, pointing your finger at the camera with the other hand and have a T-shirt on that reads “Racism sucks;” just write this on a T-shirt you plan on discarding and then have yourself photographed in it. If you do all this, I can believe that the pictures are of you or a friend of yours rather than of some Nordic woman whose pictures you lifted off the internet. I won’t be posting your pictures online unless you ask me to.
Indian girl,
None of the pictures of Punjabis that you have linked to show fine-featured European types, but then no one is saying that NW Indians look like Europeans; they are just genetically closer to Europeans than Indians in NE or southern India. Like I said before, high caste Hindus are scattered through other part of India and are closer to Europeans than lower caste people, but a lighter, high caste people in Southern India would be too much of a minority to alter the general trend of decreasing Europeanization, sampled over all inhabitants of a region, as one moves away from NW India. Therefore, I don’t see what the problem is. The study sampled some populations from NW, NE and southern India and did use enough skulls native to the regions to get the central tendency in the regions sampled.
Posted by J Richards on May 12, 2006, 08:36 AM | #
Malcolm A,
Goddamned, why are you continuing to debate a pimp? I am not kidding. Notice that others have not stepped in to post pictures of attractive Nordic women to counter the Indian women you point out. This is because they know that I am a pimp, and professional pimps obviously have an eye for the right women for the job. Thus, they have left it to me to come up with attractive Nordic women. Why don’t you work on writing papers instead of debating us dilettantes?
Anyway, you have attempted to dismiss the separate India craniofacial cluster by pointing out that 1) the authors had the objective of showing that the term Mongoloid is inappropriate and 2) a superficial examination of whales may suggest that they are fishes but genetically it is clear that they are mammals, i.e., a separate craniofacial cluster does not necessarily imply a separate taxonomical group. This is insane. You have not critiqued the methodology and brought in tangential issues. The purpose of the paper was not to test the validity of the word Mongoloid, but to address patterns of global craniofacial variation. Thus, it was found that several populations previously classified as Mongoloid did not group into the same craniofacial cluster. Since the term Mongoloid was originally based on physical appearance, it is therefore not appropriate to classify all populations previously thought to fall into this group as Mongoloid. It should also be noted that the India cluster was one of the major clusters that appeared in the analysis, and hence there is no support for grouping Indians with Europeans in regard to neutral craniofacial measurements. Regarding the whale issue, even in the absence of genetic knowledge, one would note that these animals breath air, like land animals, and hence could not be classified as fishes. Additionally, I cited two papers, one utilizing ancestry-informative DNA markers and another utilizing neutral craniofacial measurements, and both lead to the same conclusion, namely that Indians are outside the grouping of Europeans, which in conjunction with other data, such as the known history of the peopling of India, clearly shows Indians to not be part of the same race that Europeans belong to. I am not just making my case on craniofacial evidence alone.
Regarding Kate Beckinsale, you are looking at the following scenario. A white person bred with a Burmese, the resulting offspring bred with a white person, the resulting offspring again bred with a white person, and the resulting offspring was Kate Beckinsale. Now, the term Caucasoid is based on physical appearance, and Kate Beckinsale looks Caucasoid. Thus, as far as looks are concerned, it is appropriate to classify Kate Beckinsale as Caucasoid, but genetically speaking, her classification is obviously mostly European but also part East Asian. The case of South Asians is very different. You have pointed out elite, upper caste Indian women, and most of them don’t look Caucasoid, and of the rare few who do, two of them turn out to have a white father. I have posted pictures of some untouchables, none of whom look Caucasoid. Thus, in terms of looks, few Indians look Caucasoid. So, keeping in mind that the term Caucasoid was proposed to describe the facial features of Europeans, how can Indians be described as an overwhelmingly Caucasoid people when most of them don’t even look Caucasoid and belong to a separate craniofacial cluster than the craniofacial cluster that Europeans belong to? The genetic issue dovetails with the physical appearance issue. Thus, for instance, the profile of the South Asian from DNAPrint genomics above shows someone with about half European and half non-European genetic affinity, which is the equivalent of an offspring resulting from a white person breeding with a non-white. It would be inappropriate to describe this offspring as either white or European, and if the term Caucasoid was proposed to describe the facial features of Europeans, then how can this offspring be described as Caucasoid given that it doesn’t look Caucasoid? Don’t waste my time over this issue.
In response to Rosenberg’s study based on 993 microsatellites, you have mentioned two absurdities. You said that “the most important thing to look for when evaluating a publication is the conclusion/s.” This is ridiculous. The most important thing is to look at how the authors arrived at the conclusions, not the conclusions themselves. Then you said that the next thing to look at is the extent to which the scientific community has accepted the publication. What kind of scientist are you? The history of science is full of instances where a correct idea/explanation was initially ridiculed or even strongly opposed by the scientific community in general, and also full of instances where nonsense was passed as science under the blessings of most scientists (e.g., denial of race differences). Thus, the issues that matter are how the conclusions have been arrived at and how well they better explain phenomena, not how well accepted the ideas are. You also said that “You can cite 10 papers against my 1, but you will still NOT prove your point depending on the quality and reputation of the people you cite.” This is coming from a scientist!!! Once again, the quality of the evidence matters, not the quality and reputation of the researchers. Even if a researcher has a solid track record of high quality research, it does not follow that a new paper by him must also be high quality; the quality of a paper depends on the evidence offered in it, not the reputation of the authors. Such statements on your part show that you are either not a scientist or one who is a disgrace to the scientific community.
You have to be under some serious delusion to say that you have “already shown that Rosenberg’s clustering is neither comprehensive nor conclusive. There is NOT a single reference as to how the Negorids, Caucasoids, Mongoloids etc would fit or not fit into his scheme.” You have not critiqued the methodology, and Rosenberg’s data makes it very clear what the traditional terms correspond to: Negroid = sub-Saharan Africans, Caucasoid = European, and Mongoloid = Chinese and related people.
You assert that the proof of at least 5 races reflects the uncertain nature of the papers. There is no uncertainty that the minimum number of races in humans is 5. The reason that a definitive figure cannot be arrived at is that not all human populations have been sampled in these studies.
You point out holes in Rosenberg’s data by saying:
The problem w/ Rosenberg’s reputation is further discussed below, and confirms my questions to you about holes in his technique
....These distinctions of research aims and scale can be seen by the example of three major research papers published since 2002: Rosenberg et al. (2002), Serre & Paabo (2004), and Tang et al. (2005). Both Rosenberg et al. and Serre & Paabo study global genetic variation, but they arrive at different conclusions. Serre & Paabo attribute their differing conclusions to experimental designREF : http://experts.about.com/e/r/ra/Race.htm.
Why does an esteemed scientist such as you have to quote others to criticize the paper? The quote does not address problems with Rosenberg’s reputation, but addresses a possible problem with Rosenberg’s methodology. However, if you had only bothered to read the 2005 paper by Rosenberg, you would note that this criticism no longer applies. Of the three research papers cited in the quote, Rosenberg and Tang found evidence for racial groupings, but Serre & Paabo didn’t and they argued that the evidence for racial groupings was an artifact of population-based sampling and the assumption of a correlated alleles model. Rosenberg showed in his 2005 paper that as long as you have a sufficient number of alleles, even geography-based sampling and an uncorrelated alleles model provides evidence for population clustering, i.e., races. Therefore, your quotation is not applicable. Once again, I am obviously wasting my time because you will not bother to read the papers that I cite.
Posted by J Richards on May 12, 2006, 08:49 AM | #
Malcolm A,
Now you have cited a bunch of sources to support your contention that South Asians are Caucasoid. Your first source is an online dictionary! Your next three sources are Oppenheimer, Bamshad and Spencer Wells, all of whom are mostly addressing Y-chromosome DNA evidence, which shows European migrations toward India. Two things should be noted about this data. Americans blacks typically have some European ancestry, but I don’t think that you will call them Caucasoid for this reason. Therefore, part-European ancestry does not necessarily make one fit into the same race as Europeans. Secondly, Y-chromosome data will show much greater European affiliation on the part of South Asians than mtDNA.
Your next two sources are a 1988 paper by Cavalli-Sforza and his book again. I will address Cavalli-Sforza’s paper below. The genetic and linguistic trees in this paper are shown below.
Firstly, this dataset refutes your notion of there being only three races since you can see the NE Asians clustering with the “Caucasoids” rather than with SE Asians, i.e., there is no support for only three races on the part of this study, and this study supports at least 4 races in humans. Secondly, if you had only bothered to read this paper, you would have noted that the Lapps joined an Asiatic cluster in 32% of the bootstraps, the Berbers joined the African cluster in 20% of the bootstraps and the Dravidians joined an Asiatic cluster in 20% of the bootstraps. This is obviously because these are mixed populations. It is well known that a mixed population attaches in the tree to the branch that has contributed the greater fraction. Thus, if someone’s ancestry is 42% European, 28% East Asian, 15% African and 15% Australoid, then this person will attach to the branch containing Europeans since this branch has contributed the greatest fraction, but this certainly doesn’t mean that this person belongs to the same race that Europeans belong to. Also note that Cavalli-Sforza used the term Caucasoid, but not Negroid and Mongoloid. Cavalli-Sforza cannot use Mongoloid to refer to NE and SE Asians because NE Asians are clustering with the “Caucasoid” group rather than with SE Asians. It is obvious that Cavalli-Sforza is using Caucasoid as a convenience term only, and could very well have chosen to use Euro-Mediterranean, instead.
Your next citation is Cavalli-Sforza’s book again. Note that your quote assigns green to Caucasoids, but South Asia is not shown in green, i.e., your idea that South Asians are Caucasoid is refuted right there, but you seize on to the statement about the unity of Caucasoids in Europe and South Asia. This does not mean that South Asians are Caucasoid or else they would be shown in green. The statement simply shows a genetic link between Europeans and South Asians, which nobody here is disputing, and since Caucasoid is a term originally proposed to describe physical appearance, it is clear that there are a minority of people with Caucasoid facial features in India, who can be described as Caucasoid with respect to physical appearance only, and the data show that these people can trace part of their ancestry to Europe; hence the statement of the unity of Caucasoids in Europe and in India. Additionally, don’t let the same-color assignment to Northern Scandinavia and India fool you. The same-color assignment is easily explained. Look at the following pictures of Scandinavians-proper.
Now look at some pictures of Northern Scandinavians (in traditional dresses). What do you see?
It is clear that the facial features of Northern Scandinavians vary from Caucasoid to non-Caucasoid, which results from Asian-European mixing in the region. Since the largest two racial elements in India are European and Asian, the color assigned to India and all the way up to Northern Scandinavia reflects the transition from East Asian to European, and this transition, like the region where one color band in a rainbow blends into another, is not assigned a race. Of course, simple color bands cannot capture complex genetic history, but they do give a bird’s eye view of the scenario, and it is clear that South Asians are not assigned the same color as Europeans-proper.
Your last source to support your belief that Indians are Caucasian is once again the 1937 U.S. Supreme Court statement that “Indians were Caucasians and that anthropologists considered them to be of the same race as white Americans.” What in the world? Is this a scientific source? Why can you not cite recent evidence? Obviously because quantitative skeletal and molecular studies clearly show Indians to be outside the race of whites.
My citation of Lewontin’s fallacy was appropriate in response to your statement that clustering does not prove anything because the traits examined have to be uniform within groups; in you own words, “[cluster analyses] are simply not acceptable statistical tools unless they do NOT show dissimilar within and between group variance ( ie are uniform ).” Thus, I cited A.W.F. Edwards’ paper to show that even if the majority of the variation is within groups (no uniformity, greater variation within groups than between groups, and considerable group overlap), it is still possible for cluster analysis to neatly separate blindly sampled individuals into separate categories. Additionally, are you serious about saying that Lewontin’s view rather than Lewontin’s fallacy was debunked? If yes, then are you insane? What was debunked was Lewontin’s fallacious view, which could be described as either Lewontin’s view or Lewontin’s fallacy, the latter being more appropriate since Lewontin has espoused plenty of viewpoints, not all of which are fallacious.
Posted by J Richards on May 12, 2006, 08:55 AM | #
Malcolm A,
Regarding cluster analysis, you wrote:
Let us say that there are two groups and there is variation within each group on, say, 20 variables, distributions for all 20 variables are identical in either group. You are saying that cluster analysis of these 20 variables will in some such cases separate individuals, randomly and blindly drawn from both groups, into separate clusters. Find me one such example among humans; it doesn’t have to be 20 variables, but there should be at least 10 variables, and the cluster analysis should separate the groups based on at least 3 of the 10 variables or if you reference a study with a large number of variables, then the groups should be separated by at least 15% of the variables.
??? Where did I say this ? [ie underlined portion ?].I was just trying to explain that correlation Coefficients indicate significance of association rather than that of differences. I hope you are not trying to test me or mislead/confuse me by just writing some gobbledygook!
Here is what you said:
UT for such data clustering alone would not prove anything. For such data one needs significance tests with known power, reliability and precision. ( perhaps a comparison of fiducial limits of parameters.) skull length, breadth, height, sagittal contour, face length, face breadth, orbital opening, nasal opening, lower nasal margin, nasal
profile etc are some of the data points to be considered for a two way ANOVA .
In other words, you are saying that clustering in separate groups does not prove anything, i.e., that there are significant differences between the groups. Thus, I asked you to come up with a real life example of individuals being separated into separate clusters such that there are no significant differences between the clusters.
You also said:
My intention in posting the above review was to indicate that Cluster analysis is primarily an EXPLORATORY technique and a TOOL OF DISCOVERY & not a DEFINITIVE one. I have done some clustering myself. It helps you form an idea. Does not allow you to determine whether differences are significant or NOT.
It is obvious that if grouping into separate clusters can either be due to significant differences between the clusters or no differences, then separate clustering does not allow one to determine whether there are significant differences between the groups, but if grouping into separate clusters can only be if there are significant differences between groups, then separate clustering is also proof of significant differences between the groups. You are implying the former scenario and this is why it is necessary for you to provide an example—in accordance with the underlined statement—of individuals being separated into separate clusters such that there are no significant differences between the clusters.
Besides, you curiously said that you hope that I am not trying to mislead/confuse you. How can a lowly pimp confuse or mislead an esteemed scientist?
Don’t forget that I cited three examples of statistically significant differences between Europeans and Indians in craniofacial structures—nose width, nose length and upper nose projection—which shows that there are indeed statistically significant differences between Europeans and Indians in craniofacial features, which is consistent with their assignment to separate craniofacial clusters, but you have ignored this evidence.
You wrote that “[if] it is found that groups A &B are significantly correlated as compared to A & C that does not indicate that A & C are significantly different.but just that A & B show more association [cluster closely ] than A & C.” Care to cite a practical example to help a non-scientist who lacks your profound understanding?
What is your point in citing the story of the puzzled Caucasian? This person found genetic evidence of ancestry from the Russian Caucasus, but then the Indo-European people who spread out from this region were a white people. So what is the puzzlement?
You said that no one believes that beauty pageants are not about beauty. Someone with your poor perception has apparently not noted the large number of unattractive women participating in these contests, but others have, and if these contests were about beauty, then unattractive women would not be participating. You are right that beauty contests are also about smartness, but there are plenty of attractive and smart women around, yet you see a number of unattractive women in these contests.
It is not just me who sees that Indian women have more massive cheekbones, broader noses, thicker lips, and a higher frequency of hooked noses compared to Nordic women. Anyone with reasonable perception can see this even in elite Indian women, forget about the general population.
Besides, I have not included Indian women in my entry because I am threatened by them. I have previously addressed East Asians, and it would be appropriate to address South Asians at some point, which I did in this entry. Clueless whites need to know about the disastrous aesthetic consequences of absorbing non-whites into the white gene pool, and hence entries such as this are needed.
Anyway, you need to quit coming up with your demented pointers or else I will be forced to use the language that I use with my hos.
Regarding the women you pointed out, here is Mandira Bedi compared to a Nordic.
And, here is Mahima Chowdry compared to a Nordic.
Posted by anjali on May 12, 2006, 10:12 AM | #
u are all dicks...white skin is the most disgusting color i have seen...goes all ghostly pale in the winter and red and blotchy in the summer...gross...we dont need our beautiful people of color to mix with whites and contaminate our beautiful genes and blood…
All the pictures of the white women posted on this site are ugly...they have thin noses that looked like the nostrils have been squashed toghether, and their lips are so thin, they look like they have buck teeth cos theres not enuf lip to cover the teeth, not to mention their hair which looks like the color of a dirty vermin and once again that disgusting complexion which looks washed out...who cares about the fineness of ones features...sure the whites have smaller, finer features, however ure an idiot if u think thats what makes them attractive...angelina jolie with her big lips and high cheekbones could pass for an indian anyday...uglies like jennifer aniston couldnt...Blondes are the ugliest ppl around...Indians are the best looking closely followed by Persians, Arabs and Hispanics.
Aishwarya Rai has been voted as the western media as the most beautiful women in the world...and ppl like J Richards like to suck their grandmothers, who are ugly whores...Unfortunately the looks arent the only department where the whites are lacking...same goes for the culture, or lack thereof, religion, customs etc
Posted by Al Ross on May 12, 2006, 11:35 AM | #
Anjali,(we hope, not a Brit),
Has skin the colour of shit,
How she’d love to be fair,
With Caucasian blonde hair,
And an IQ of triple-digit.
But a Darkie is what she remains,
No matter how much she complains;
She could pray to Lord Shiva,
Spread dye on her beaver,
And still she’d have Indian brains.
Posted by anjali on May 12, 2006, 01:50 PM | #
wah wah....what wit, we have a poet in our midst!!! we should all defer cos the wanker knows how to rhyme his words…
“shed love to be fair”...how presumptuous....even after reading that, man with such a high IQ finds it difficult to cotton on to the fact that my post was dissing blonde haired, white skinned ppl.
As a Christian i will refrain from praying to Lord Shiva, but thank Jesus Christ that he gave me luscious black locks and beautifully colored olive skin.
Indian brains only will suffice for me, and suck on this wanker........
India is the world’s largest, oldest, continuous civilization.
India never invaded any country in her last 10000 years of history.
India is the world’s largest democracy.
Varanasi, also known as Benares, was called “the ancient city” when Lord Buddha visited it in 500 B.C.E, and is the oldest, continuously inhabited city in the world today.
India invented the Number System. Zero was invented by Aryabhatta.
The World’s first university was established in Takshashila in 700BC. More than 10,500 students from all over the world studied more than 60 subjects. The University of Nalanda built in the 4th century BC was one of the greatest achievements of ancient India in the field of education.
Sanskrit is the mother of all the European languages. Sanskrit is the most suitable language for computer software - a report in Forbes magazine, July 1987.
Ayurveda is the earliest school of medicine known to humans. Charaka, the father of medicine consolidated Ayurveda 2500 years ago. Today Ayurveda is fast regaining its rightful place in our civilization.
Although modern images of India often show poverty and lack of development, India was the richest country on earth until the time of British invasion in the early 17th Century. Christopher Columbus was attracted by India’s wealth.
The art of Navigation was bornin the river Sindhu 6000 years ago. The very word Navigation is derived from the Sanskrit word NAVGATIH. The word navy is also derived from Sanskrit ‘Nou’.
Bhaskaracharya calculated the time taken by the earth to orbit the sun hundreds of years before the astronomer Smart. Time taken by earth to orbit the sun: (5th century) 365.258756484 days.
The value of pi was first calculated by Budhayana, and he explained the concept of what is known as the Pythagorean Theorem. He discovered this in the 6th century long before the European mathematicians.
Algebra, trigonometry and calculus came from India. Quadratic equations were by Sridharacharya in the 11th century. The largest numbers the Greeks and the Romans used were 106 whereas Hindus used numbers as big as 10**53(10 to the power of 53) with specific names as early as 5000 BCE during the Vedic period. Even today, the largest used number is Tera 10**12(10 to the power of 12).
IEEE has proved what has been a century old suspicion in the world scientific community that the pioneer of wireless communication was Prof. Jagdish Bose and not Marconi.
The earliest reservoir and dam for irrigation was built in Saurashtra.
According to Saka King Rudradaman I of 150 CE a beautiful lake called Sudarshana was constructed on the hills of Raivataka during Chandragupta Maurya’s time.
Chess (Shataranja or AshtaPada) was invented in India.
Sushruta is the father of surgery. 2600 years ago he and health scientists of his time conducted complicated surgeries like cesareans, cataract, artificial limbs, fractures, urinary stones and even plastic surgery and brain surgery. Usage of anesthesia was well known in ancient India. Over 125 surgical equipment were used. Deep knowledge of anatomy, physiology, etiology, embryology, digestion, metabolism, genetics and immunity is also found in many texts.
When many cultures were only nomadic forest dwellers over 5000 years ago, Indians established Harappan culture in Sindhu Valley (Indus Valley Civilization).
The four religions born in India, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism, are followed by 25% of the world’s population.
The place value system, the decimal system was developed in India in 100 BC.
India is one of the few countries in the World, which gained independence without violence.
India has the second largest pool of Scientists and Engineers in the World.
India is the largest English speaking nation in the world.
India is the only country other than US and Japan, to have built a super computer indigenously.
Famous Quotes on India (by non-Indians)
Albert Einstein said: We owe a lot to the Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made.
Mark Twain said: India is, the cradle of the human race, the birthplace of human speech, the mother of history, the grandmother of legend, and the great grand mother of tradition. Our most valuable and most instructive materials in the history of man are treasured up in India only.
French scholar Romain Rolland said: If there is one place on the face of earth where all the dreams of living men have found a home from the very earliest days when man began the dream of existence, it is India.
Hu Shih, former Ambassador of China to USA said: India conquered and dominated China culturally for 20 centuries without ever having to send a single soldier across her border.
Facts to make every Indian proud
Q. Who is the co-founder of Sun Microsystems?
A. Vinod Khosla
Q. Who is the creator of Pentium chip (needs no introduction as 90% of the
today’s computers run on it)?
A. Vinod Dahm
Q. Who is the third richest man on the world?
A. According to the latest report on Fortune Magazine, it is Aziz Premji,
who is the CEO of Wipro Industries. The Sultan of Brunei is at 6th
position now.
Q. Who is the founder and creator of Hotmail (Hotmail is world’s No.1 web
based email program)?
A. Sabeer Bhatia
Q. Who is the president of AT & T-Bell Labs (AT & T-Bell Labs is the creator
of program languages such as C, C++, Unix to name a few)?
A. Arun Netravalli
Q. Who is the GM of Hewlett Packard?
A. Rajiv Gupta
Q. Who is the new MTD (Microsoft Testing Director) of Windows 2000,
responsible to iron out all initial problems?
A. Sanjay Tejwrika
Q. Who are the Chief Executives of CitiBank, Mckensey & Stanchart?
A. Victor Menezes, Rajat Gupta, and Rana Talwar.
We Indians are the wealthiest among all ethnic groups in America, even
faring better than the whites and the natives.
There are 3.22 millions of Indians in USA (1.5% of population). ,
Websites you might be interested in
Posted by anjali on May 12, 2006, 02:06 PM | #
you brits are the big joke and your ancestors the australians are an even bigger joke...in australia, i am invited to a bbq dinner...to this dinner ive been invited to i am expected to bring my own drinks and my own meat for the barbie, shall i bring my own cutlery perhaps??...such is the hospitality and culture of the whites...why the hell wouldnt one go to a restaraunt?? and does the conncept of a family unit exist in these white cultures?? ppl dont know what the term respect means...on top of that...one of my white acquaintances recently asked her mother to knit her a scarf...her mother accepted of course as long as the scarf was paid for...wow...now let me relate my own story...recently my aunt needed to put down a deposit for a house she wanted to but...my parents gave her $20 thousand australian dollars...this was gifted to my aunt not lent...so shes not even expected to repay it...not that we are rich and can afford it, but such is our generosity, and the value we place on our relationships…
Posted by Malcolm A on May 12, 2006, 02:08 PM | #
u are all dicks...white skin is the most disgusting color i have seen...goes all ghostly pale in the winter and red and blotchy in the summer...gross...we dont need our beautiful people of color to mix with whites and contaminate our beautiful genes and blood…
Please be nice to others. Everyone has an opinion and insulting people/races does not achieve anything.
I am a white married to a indian. SO there
Cheers
Posted by Nio Zilda on May 12, 2006, 02:24 PM | #
you brits are the big joke and your ancestors the australians are an even bigger joke...in australia, i am invited to a bbq dinner
Why the f*ck are you in Australia? Go back home. You Asiatics are not wanted, liked, or needed, in our countries. And you lot are ugly in comparison with Northern Europeans, as honest Indians admit.
Posted by Guessedworker on May 12, 2006, 02:55 PM | #
Anjali,
Our point is that large aggregates of Sub-Continental immigrant are not wanted in the West. You have a homeland of your own. Be madly wealthy and successful there, if you can. But leave us to live in peace as we wish.
Posted by anjali on May 12, 2006, 03:02 PM | #
dont flaut your indian marriage in our face like a flag..who gives a toss who ure married to...shoulda stuck with your own race...i have every right to be in australia...the land of the indigenous...its the brits and white ppl who have no claims to land in this part of the world...england is home to the brits....this includes their offsprings such as the white americans and austrlians...they should go home....ill inult ppl if i pls...they are free to say what they want to me, ill sleep easy...are race is the most attractive...northern southern eastern european...none can compare to our beauties who have been named, the most beautiful in the world...this is fun...im looking forward to your replies...so keep them rolling in…
White caucaisans are the most advanced race on earth in terms of Technological achievement and innovativeness . I totally agree with this statement as there is proof ! Almost all major scientific achievements as well as inventions were made by white Caucasians and continue to be so even now.
read the facts Malcolm A
ps..what attracted you to your indian wife, apart from your children being able to make a claim to the greatest culture in the world…
Posted by anjali on May 12, 2006, 03:04 PM | #
australians, the offspring of criminals…
Posted by C. M. on May 12, 2006, 03:09 PM | #
Malcolm A.
About the Cavalli map: isn’t it strange that Cavalli classifies part of middle east in green, while Baltics and Russia are blue?! How weird is it that Cavalli think Iran is “european”, while he thinks the Baltics (incredible blonde and blue eyed hottties) are not “european”! The whole map is a fraud! None of the middle eastern countries should be put in green.
I can understand that as a Indian you feel more closely related with Iranians, but they are not European.
The whole map is inconsistent.
Or do you think that “European” means middle eastern?
You have not answered my question why offspring of Mongoloid/White looks more European than offspring of White/south Asian. It’s you who claim that South Asians are the same as Europeans.
It’s obvious you do not accept reason. You are holding on to outdated 19th century stuff or 30 year old books.
Science has advanced further than your dusty books.
Posted by Al Ross on May 12, 2006, 03:30 PM | #
It is always a source of annoyance to cretins like anjali that the lowest type of European, the transported criminal and future Australian, could engender people who built a desert country into a far bigger success than India, with its innately backward people and hopeless Oriental fatalism.
Posted by anjali on May 12, 2006, 04:01 PM | #
if the west is successful today it is thanks to the fact that they have stolen what they never had...starting with the land they live on...brazil, a country rich in natural resources...yet most of its population lives in poverty...why?? because the west steals its resources and then sells it to others...africa...a third world continent, huge source of diamonds, which the africans themselves never see...the west give the africans loans so they can mine the diamonds but the africans have to sell the diamonds back to the west at a price set by them to repay the loans...and then the west sells it to others at exorbitant prices...same goes for the middle east and its oil...where does the west stop?? it doesnt stop on its own accord, and then they wonder why they are constantly being bombed at??
Australia was shaped by a multicultural society...the chinese and greeks arrived not long after the convicts...so the anglos cant claim they built this country themselves…
India is the place to be in the 21st century...either it or china will be the next superpower...i hope to go there soon...then the iraqis will be free to bomb this hole at will and all its stupid ppl with it…
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 12, 2006, 04:45 PM | #
India is the place to be in the 21st century [...] I hope to [move] there soon” (—anjali)
Will you agree to unlimited amounts of Chinese, Mexicans, Arabs, and Negroes being allowed to go there too? (That’s unlimited amounts mind you—no upper limits, exactly the thing we’re being asked to accommodate here.) Or is India best reserved solely for Indians?
Posted by rustymason on May 12, 2006, 06:19 PM | #
Anjali, you’re in someone else’s home, please at least try to be courteous. Perhaps you are upset that the greatest civilizations were built by Whites and you feel inadequate. Well, we try to be as inclusive as we can, but we cannot tolerate behavior such as yours. Bye.
Posted by amazed on May 12, 2006, 07:18 PM | #
wow...and to think we’re all gonna rot and die despite whatever complexion we have?!!?! This is truly amazing! What really is beauty? An indian’s beauty cannot be defined by the white man and similarly, the nordic beauty cannot be defined by the indian. We all have different concepts of beauty due to socialisation, culture etc. I never thought white women or indian women had shapely figures but that’s due to my culture. When i think of a good body i think of latinas… the brazilians, the women of the caribbean. I think of curves but others may like a little butt or none etc… it’s all about culture. It doesn’t have to be such a nasty discussion but regardless, noone should be hurt by any one else’s comments because everyone is beautiful in their own way. How is beauty defined again...? Beauty for you isn’t beauty for me… and what really matters is the heart. We die and ROT ppl!!!
And to the white ppl, if ya’ll feel so good about yourselves and I mean really really feel that way then you wouldn’t have to bring down other races just to try to make yours superior. That’s lame and i mean gosh...you’ve done that through time just to feel better about yourselves. You’ve tried to put other races down for so long...it’s incredible....maybe ya’ll don’t feel that strongly about yourselves afterall. And to talk about the IQ of others… that’s really low. I’m so ashamed to know that I’ve got white running through my veins.
Posted by Andrew on May 12, 2006, 08:09 PM | #
Anjali;
Australians as a pack of Criminals, well you must appreciate. Educated and enlightened criminals. In 200 years looks what Australians have done to build Civilization compared to some tribal shit hole in other places.
Let’s face it; you would not be here if it was a tribal shit hole, as the one you left behind.
So go back to it, and leave us Criminals to advance further. People like you are not welcome.
By the way, How Old is the subcontinents heritage?
No comparison to what: Australian Criminals have achieved in 200 years.
3 % of the population then was convicts, but considering the minor crimes they were deported for hardly rates to the crime of you standing on this land.
More Ignorance by yourself on display. You must be a Moslem, or lived close to them.
Posted by Ethnocentrist on May 13, 2006, 12:34 AM | #
Why is Anjali using the Queen’s English to berate the people of this blog? Shouldn’t she be using her native tongue clicking and head bobbing to put us in our place and confirm her superiority?
The twat..err...twit rattles off a bunch of Paki names from US based companies as confirmation of Paki superiority? LOL
Al Ross, hilarious poem.
Posted by randomdude on May 13, 2006, 01:08 AM | #
I hope that I am not making an ad hominem argument here, but most of you posting in favour of the nordic look are yourselves in such a race. This favourism may arise partially through pure aesthetics (she looks better because she looks better) but mostly from racial preservation (she looks better because she is of MY type and I want to mate with her in order to perpetuate OUR race).
That said, I agree with the assertation. Blondes are pretty and indians ugly, and that’s that.
randomdude
Posted by Nio Zilda on May 13, 2006, 01:59 AM | #
...i have every right to be in australia...the land of the indigenous…
So, I take it you got the abos’ permission before immigrating?
Posted by anjali on May 13, 2006, 02:49 AM | #
Nio...did you get permission to be here...if u didnt then wtf?? dont even talk to me...and as an aside, i was born here...immigrate is what my parents did…
Posted by anjali on May 13, 2006, 02:55 AM | #
if yall could speak anything other than english i would no doubt be talking to u in arabic...but i have to come down to ure level and communicte in english so u morons can understand…
“Sanskrit is the mother of all the European languages. “ English is a eurpean language…
Posted by anjali on May 13, 2006, 03:01 AM | #
Fred Scrooby...yes, in my opinion India should be accomodating of outsiders...hell we put up with enuf of british, and dutch shit...i dont see why we couldnt handle the others...that being said...they would have to keep to themselves...interracial mixing sux...indians have to preserve their aryan (cos yes we are the true aryans) blood...and they would have to be respectful of our culture and traditions...and before u get back to me on this one...can someone tell me what the fuck ure culutre is...if it is what i think it is, then i feel sorry for you guys…
Livivng in a multicultural nation...i can go down the street without having to see nordic bums...go to the milkbar and pick up milk from the chinese guy...or get a lift from the arab cabbie or eat out at a greek restaraunt...its gr8
Posted by Malcolm A on May 13, 2006, 03:11 AM | #
Hi C.M.
1.
About the Cavalli map: isn’t it strange that Cavalli classifies part of middle east in green, while Baltics and Russia are blue?! How weird is it that Cavalli think Iran is “european”, while he thinks the Baltics (incredible blonde and blue eyed hottties) are not “european”! The whole map is a fraud! None of the middle eastern countries should be put in green. I can understand that as a Indian you feel more closely related with Iranians, but they are not European.
The whole map is inconsistent. Or do you think that “European” means middle eastern?
You shouldn’t even be talking about this unless you are a professional biologist. I am repeating for the last time Cavalli is NOT illustrating individual races with color. He is using genetics to cluster closely related groups, thats all. There is no race called European, Indian or Iranian. That is what you are missing.
2.
You have not answered my question why offspring of Mongoloid/White looks more European than offspring of White/south Asian. It’s you who claim that South Asians are the same as Europeans.
I have studied your previous posts and believe from your many references about Mongoloids that you may be one yourself. This maybe the reason why you believe that Mongoloid and white offspring look more European. Mongoloids are typified by unusually angled eyes, flat facial structure, shapeless figures (flat hips and breasts) and to my knowledge Mongoloids haven’t been able to win a beauty contest to save their life. So, Mongoloids + Caucasoid maybe European geographically, but they will never be considered caucosoid as they are mixing races. Indians are caucasoids just as white Europeans and their mixes, and whether Meditteranean or otherwise will remain within the Caucasoid race.
Cheers.
Posted by anjali on May 13, 2006, 03:13 AM | #
sorry rustymason...pls remind me exactly whos home this is...are u an abo??
Posted by anjali on May 13, 2006, 03:15 AM | #
did yall see the closing ceremony for the melb 2006 comm games?? us indians blew the show outta the water, and that was a pretty crappy performance by indian standards...the rest of the ceremony was just plain boring
Posted by J Richards on May 13, 2006, 03:18 AM | #
Anjali,
I am glad to have you comment here. People like you make a strong case for minimizing the presence of the dark races in the West. You hate our culture and customs, yet live in our midst because your countries of origin are hellholes. You ascribe many inventions and innovations to your own dark kind, claim that whites have stolen these from the dark races, and blame the abysmal quality of life in your homelands on exploitation by whites. Wow, talk about serious delusion!
Let me briefly address some of your nonsense. The oldest civilizations have been documented in Europe and the Levant, not India. India does not have a history of invading others because it mostly consisted of tribal units that had neither the intelligence nor the military might to invade other nations. The reason India is the largest democracy is because democracy was introduced by the British, not invented by the Indians, and European-achieved advances in medicine and agriculture notably reduced mortality in India, thereby rapidly increasing its size.
In case you didn’t notice, there is plenty of documentation here—by none other than the great scientist, Malcolm A., who greatly admires the beauty of Indian women—that there have been European migrations toward India, and the genetic legacy of these migrations is most evident in high caste Hindus. Thus, some of the inventions and innovations you ascribe to the supposedly dark inhabitants of India were a product of white or close-to-white people, whereas the others are pure fiction on the part of deluded Hindu supremacists.
For instance, you mention the great Hindu medical system known as Ayurveda, which teaches that diseases are caused—in part—by the malevolence of female demons! Ayurvedic products are repeatedly flagged in Western nations for containing excessive lead and other metals that pose a danger to one’s health. Some Hindus are even known to practice urine therapy, a long-standing practice among many Hindu holy men and other Asians, which involves drinking urine for therapeutic and preventative measures! Boy, am I flabbergasted at how advanced the indigenous medicine of the dark races of India (Ayurveda is not an Aryan element) was thousands of years ago!
Your praise of Sanskrit fails to consider that it was brought in by the Aryans and is not native to the dark people of India.
Big deal India gained independence without much violence! India was dealing with the British, and the British Empire was one of the most benign in history. The British would have left India eventually, regardless of what the Indians did.
Don’t gloat over India having a large number of scientists and engineers. Judging by the dearth of top-notch inventions and discoveries on their part, India probably leads the World in having the largest pool of third-rate scientists and engineers in the world.
India is the largest English speaking country in the World? Well, India probably takes the cake when it comes to a large English-speaking population that also has the highest incidence of poor language proficiency. Of course, Indians did not invent this language and all their indigenous languages have a far less rich vocabulary than English does.
Regarding India developing its own supercomputer, what Indian engineers did was to hook up a bunch of ordinary processors in parallel, which were bought from the West, and this is how Indians ended up with a supercomputer. None of this comes close to white engineers in the US, who actually designed and produced very powerful CPUs and hooked them together to come up with something most aptly describable as a supercomputer. Even the Japanese came up with their supercomputers by hooking up a large number of not-very-powerful processors in parallel.
Regarding Indians and software engineering, the 2006 ACM international competition for top computing prowess was dominated by white males. Northeast Asians, in spite of their superior average IQ, especially in math ability, and huge numbers could at best manage the 5th rank, and people from India were nowhere to be seen among the ranked. Similarly, the great majority of top-ranked computer programmers dealing with the most difficult aspects of computer programming at topcoder.com are white males; there are few Northeast Asians and no South Asians in the top ranks (top 20). Besides, the average IQ of South Asia is in the low 80s. And, your brightest people are typically high caste Hindus, closer to Europeans than lower caste people, and a small minority of the Indian population.
On the other hand, you have digressed into matters not relevant to this entry. More relevant to this entry, notwithstanding Indian women winning several beauty pageants, which you have emphasized like Malcolm A., Nordic women rather than South Asian women are the stuff of men’s fantasy around the world, which is the proper yardstick of who is considered more attractive. Anyway, if you dislike the West, don’t live in it.
Posted by Malcolm A on May 13, 2006, 03:19 AM | #
Hi Anjali,
Show some class.
By using profanity and insults you are demeaning India and Indians. Try to present your point of view without losing your cool.
Cheers.
Posted by anjali on May 13, 2006, 03:26 AM | #
Varanasi, also known as Benares, was called “the ancient city” when Lord Buddha visited it in 500 B.C.E, and is the oldest, continuously inhabited city in the world today.
Although modern images of India often show poverty and lack of development, India was the richest country on earth until the time of British invasion in the early 17th Century. Christopher Columbus was attracted by India’s wealth.
Once again, the british came and fucked up all they saw...including the women...so yea andrew...lets not compare our ancient civilisation..to some tribe and moreover to what you whites like to call “your” cicvilisation
Posted by anjali on May 13, 2006, 04:14 AM | #
J Richards… would stick ure dick in a hole given half a chance...let me give you the tip…
“your brightest people are typically high caste Hindus, closer to Europeans than lower caste people, and a small minority of the Indian population.”
pls dont ever compare us to the shitstix europeans are...we dont want to and will never be like them...and get your story straingt...first you say we are nothing like even in looks and now your try to how high caste are closer to them...do u kno anythng about the caste system?? it was based on social class…
sure aryan ancestory and sanksrit was brought in...by the aryans...not by the nordics..whats is the point ure trying to make?? westerners are not the ancestors of aryans however much they wish they were…
The day where any western country has a women for PM is the day we can say they are truly democratic nations...till date america, britain and australia are yet to see women leaders...and u love to call ureselves a democracy..u dont even kno the meanin of that word…
“highest incidence of poor language proficiency”
please...its a known fact the australians absolutely butcher this language...they know nil about grammar for starters…
Grammar constitutes one of India’s greatest contributions to Western philology. Panini, the Sanskrit grammarian, who lived between 750 and 500 BC, was the first to compose formal grammar through his Astadhyai
Proper ayurvedic medicines are herbs not chemicals...like the ones u use in western product...im yet to come across a face wash that doesnt contain sodium laureth sulphate...used to was garage floors...in our skin prodcuts!!
yea...british would have left india eventually...once there was nothing left for them, once they had destroyed everything...and when they left they took with them...indian cooks, so they would not be reduced to eating pig food like mash potato and corn and they also took a great indian game, cricket, which they now like to claim as their own ans tea…
Interesting Facts about India and Indians!
38% of Doctors in America are Indians.
12% of Scientists in America are Indians.
36% of NASA employees are Indians.
34% of MICROSOFT employees are Indians
28% of IBM employees are Indians
17% of INTEL employees are Indians
13% of XEROX employees are Indians
These facts were recently published in a German Magazine which deals with WORLD HISTORY
There is a difference between aisian white skin and nordic white skin...the latter being the shit type
i havent finished...but i have more pressing matters to attend to..such as eating
Posted by anjali on May 13, 2006, 04:28 AM | #
when i see the northern scandanavians in traditional garb...i see red, ugly, fat women dressed in...i dunno...what do u call the crappy clothes they wear??
Posted by Malcolm A on May 13, 2006, 05:29 AM | #
Hi JR
1. Goddamned, why are you continuing to debate a pimp..Why don’t you work on writing papers instead of debating us dilettantes?
JR, Relax. Posting girlie pics doesn’t make one a pimp...Just an enthusiast of beauty matters ( like me !! ) Why am I debating you ? Well, you should have figured out that a guy like me with post grad qualifications, and over 25 years of field experience can’t be very young !! I am semi-retired due to health reasons and hence a lot of spare time to debunk your myths. Hope that settles that.
2 You have not critiqued the methodology and brought in tangential issues...Since the term Mongoloid was originally based on physical appearance, it is therefore not appropriate to classify all populations previously thought to fall into this group as Mongoloid
Additionally, I cited two papers, one utilizing ancestry-informative DNA markers and another utilizing neutral craniofacial measurements, and both lead to the same conclusion, namely that Indians are outside the grouping of Europeans… etc.
You got it all wrong as usual.
I cited the craniofacial measurements of whales vs elephants example to prove that THOSE ALONE are not enough to prove taxonomical affinities OR differences. As I stated in my reply to C.M, all other data ( evolutionary, genetic, Paleontological, Biochemical, physiological, morphological + anthropological, linguistic, historic etc ) have to be combined to trace these affinities. Of course evolutionary and morpho’s are the most important. However if you can prove there is significant statistical differences between skulls ( morpho) + bio chemical+ genetic + evolutionary+ ... evidence supported by linguistic +....etc ) then that is evidence.
Simply citing craniofacial differences don’t prove anything ( vis a vis whale examples ).
3 Now, the term Caucasoid is based on physical appearance, and Kate Beckinsale looks Caucasoid. Thus, as far as looks are concerned, it is appropriate to classify Kate Beckinsale as Caucasoid, but genetically speaking....few Indians look Caucasoid.....most of them don’t even look Caucasoid !)
I see that you are trying very hard to wriggle outa this one… Who says caucaosids are based on physical appearance ? WRONG there ( weren’t U citing genetic evidence sometime back ). Also, in citing that Kate is 3 generations Caucasian and hence classified Caucasoid, proves my point. It is the degree of admixture that counts in classification. So what if Indians are a little mixed they are still taxonomically Caucasians !
You seem to be admitting that at least some Indians are Caucasian ( ie... few Indians look Caucasoid.....most of them don’t even look Caucasoid !) Few in India may run into many many millions!!!
.4.You said that “the most important thing to look for when evaluating a publication is the conclusion/s.” This is ridiculous
How so ? What matters in the final analysis in the conclusion. Most people don’t know how Einstein arrived at his Relativity equation. But they know that E=MC^2 !!
10 papers written by grad students wont be = to 1 by cavalli in the degree of acceptance in the community for sure UNLESS they manage to prove Cavalli is totaly wrong !!
Part 2 follows
Posted by Malcolm A on May 13, 2006, 05:43 AM | #
Hi JR ( part 2)
5
.Once again, the quality of the evidence matters, not the quality and reputation of the researchers.
Well, as I said to C.M. validity and integrity are different things. Reputation is built up over time based on validity. Validity depends on acceptability by the community .Mull that one over.
6.You assert that the proof of at least 5 races reflects the uncertain nature of the papers. There is no uncertainty that the minimum number of races in humans is 5.
..and which 5 is that ? also please show me any university prescribed / latest Zoological text that names these 5 as the current human races...How do they know in advance that the minimum number might not go down to 3 or 4 as more research is done?
7.Why does an esteemed scientist such as you have to quote others to criticize the paper? The quote does not address problems with Rosenberg’s reputation, but addresses a possible problem with Rosenberg’s methodology
Well, if I did would you accept my critique. So others ( 3rd party) have to come in ; don’t they ? Rosenberg had more problems than I let on here.
8. Your first source is an online dictionary!
Maybe you should contemplate on why the online dictionary would give such a definition in 2005 ? Surely they have their sources ? and also proves that Caucasoid race w/ Indian is NOT just a figment of my imagination…
.9.Oppenheimer, Bamshad and Spencer Wells, all of whom are mostly addressing Y-chromosome DNA evidence, which shows European migrations toward India
Really ? Are you sure of this ? I’ll bet you never even opened Oppenheimer’s book. Thats not what he says !
10. Americans blacks typically have some European ancestry, but I don’t think that you will call them Caucasoid for this reason. Therefore, part-European ancestry does not necessarily make one fit into the same race as Europeans.
European race ? never heard of that one until I came here .!
11Cavalli-Sforza cannot use Mongoloid to refer to NE and SE Asians because NE Asians are clustering with the “Caucasoid” group rather than with SE Asians. It is obvious that Cavalli-Sforza is using Caucasoid as a convenience term only, and could very well have chosen to use Euro-Mediterranean, instead.
Now you are interpreting cavalli’s words to suit your theories. Did you check w/ Cavalli to see whether he agrees w/ your interpretation of what he wrote ? Please don’t put words in Cavallis mouth. The old guy wouldn’t like it !
Cavalli, the foremost authority on this matter as of now, has, in his 1995 book, which is considered an authoritative text, reconfirmed these findings as I repeated in the previous post.( ie the unity of the Caucasoids from Europe ..and South Asia ). Cannot be any clearer than that. Too bad it doesn’t agree w/ your view point.
quote]11who can be described as Caucasoid with respect to physical appearance only, and the data show that these people can trace part of their ancestry to Europe; hence the statement of the unity of Caucasoids in Europe and in India. Additionally, don’t let the same-color assignment to Northern Scandinavia and India fool you. The same-color assignment is easily explained. Look at the following pictures of Scandinavians-proper
Again, yet another interpretation..Does cavalli use the word ancestry anywhere in the unity of the caucasoids statement ?[like ancestry based unity of etc etc..} NO.
12 Since the largest two racial elements in India are European and Asian, the color assigned to India and all the way up to Northern Scandinavia reflects the transition from East Asian to European, and this transition, like the region where one color band in a rainbow blends into another, is not assigned a race. Of course, simple color bands cannot capture complex genetic history
I would accept this interpretation of yours, only if Cavalli himself issued a letter agreeing that your interpetation of his map is the correct one, as opposed to his own interpretation !!
PART 3 follows
Posted by Malcolm A on May 13, 2006, 05:59 AM | #
PART 3
13.Your last source to support your belief that Indians are Caucasian is once again the 1937 U.S. Supreme Court statement that “Indians were Caucasians and that anthropologists considered them to be of the same race as white Americans.” What in the world? Is this a scientific source?
Lo !! Didn’t Einstein publish his Relativity in 1923 (?) ? Do I hear any complaints about the year ? NO. You missed the importance of this argument. None of my former nationalist friends here has ever raised any objections to this decision based on any new scientific evidence from Rosenberg et al etc !! So far no challenges from my former heritage foundation buddies here in N America and therefore it stands !!
14. Additionally, are you serious about saying that Lewontin’s view rather than Lewontin’s fallacy was debunked
Why beat a dead horse. Maybe what you intended to say did not come out the way it shouldda been. This is just small potatoes. Semantics. Forget it.
15.Here is what you said:
BUT for such data clustering alone would not prove anything. For such data one needs significance tests with known power, reliability and precision. ( perhaps a comparison of fiducial limits of parameters.) skull length, breadth, height, sagittal contour, face length, face breadth, orbital opening, nasal opening, lower nasal margin, nasal profile etc are some of the data points to be considered for a two way ANOVA
Now that I did say. But this is not what you said, I said in the previous post ! [ie You are saying that cluster analysis of these 20 variables will in some such cases separate individuals, randomly and blindly drawn from both groups, into separate clusters] See the difference between 1 and 2.
In other words, you are saying that clustering in separate groups does not prove anything, i.e.,
Again this I did NOT say. It is your own interpretation Just like your interpretations of Cavalli’s words. I said clustering does not prove significant differences among groups but rather significant association ( though there is one coeff that can be used to prove differences which is not that used often due to difficulties of interpretation ( coefficient of divergence )
AND you want me to cite an example, here is one !
Imagine a hypothetical involving 3 white groups ; say British, German (Germanics)and French (Romanics ) ; all 3 are members of your so called European race ! Clustering would prove that British and Germans cluster significantly closer to each other than British and French (or German and French) do. But does that prove British and French are significantly different enough for the French to be classified as outside the European race . NO ! Both Germanics and Romanics belong to the European race but Britsh are sgnificantly more closer to the German than they are to the French who are a different (Romanic) tribe !! [Please don’t start an argument over specifics about Brits, Franks etc This was just a hypothetical case to illustrate a point..]
SEE correlation is essentially a test for association and proves only the significance of such association and this is helpful to test whether 2 or more OTU groups are closely associated so that they can be clustered together. Aside from K clustering several other methods can be used ie rJK etc for genetic distance, resemblance, racial likeness, divergence, Euclidean (temporal/ spatial) distance etc....which are then analyzed for variance by weighted methods. The Matches Asymptote method is the commonly used method and uses the ‘proportion of characters agreeing to the total compared’ which .assumes that similarity between 2 Operational Taxonomic Units (OTU) expresses the same similarity between a parametric proportion of character matches ( Needs no defense as supported by Sampling theory )
SUMMARY
Let us look at what we are trying to prove here.
1. I am saying that Indian and White caucasoids are different in many ways, but are still classified under Caucasoids.
So please stop repeating arguments that try to prove they are 2 different populations, which they are [ This is why your citations proving craniofacial differencess etc are out of point ; I already agreed that they are different in many ways ] . But they both classify under the Caucasoid population as opposed to Negroid or Mongoloid.
IF YOU ARE trying to prove that the Indians are a totally new classificational taxa outside of the major three, then provide the new classification, including their new race nomenclature (ie Indianoid ? ), meaning a proclamation by the Royal Zoological Society etc., that, ‘ according to evidence provided by Rosenberg et al, a totally new Zoological classification of the Homo Sapiens Spps has been established: There are now 4 races ; Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid and - here is the new addition - INDIANOID !!’
This is what you should try to prove !
BEAUTY MATTERS
....1if these contests were about beauty, then unattractive women would not be participating
JR, attractive and/or unattractive is a relative term. Even among the contestants some are more unattractive compared to the others and so on and so forth…
.2. It is not just me who sees that Indian women have more massive cheekbones, broader noses, thicker lips, and a higher frequency of hooked noses compared to Nordic women. Anyone with reasonable perception can see this even in elite Indian women, forget about the general population
Didn’t you admit to ‘Indian gurl’ that there is variability among both Nordic and Indian women in terms of individual facial features and that it is the total package that matters ? OR am I mistaken again. You said Indians have hooked noses and I just showed you one with a straight nose… So now
what seems to be the problem
3. Besides, I have not included Indian women in my entry because I am threatened ...
You missed the bus again. Please read what I said. I said you included Indian women [by comparing them w/ our women here ] because U felt that Indians were the ones posing a threat to our women in terms of beauty.
4. Anyway, you need to quit coming up with your demented pointers or else I will be forced to use the language that I use with my hos.
JR not nice ! Arent you a registered writer of a reputed blog ? We are both civilized and educated men right ?.Anyway, I thought you were already using bad language ( ass, etc ) But I am not at all the sensitive type ! If you like to use bad language feel free to do so by all means. I am American, remember ? ( we invented bad language here in the Wild West and aren’t very impressed by it ).
But, hey, if it’s serious rationale you require w/out any humor, so be it !
Take it easy.
…
Posted by C. M. on May 13, 2006, 08:41 AM | #
“I have studied your previous posts and believe from your many references about Mongoloids that you may be one yourself. This maybe the reason why you believe that Mongoloid and white offspring look more European. Mongoloids are typified by unusually angled eyes, flat facial structure, shapeless figures (flat hips and breasts) and to my knowledge Mongoloids haven’t been able to win a beauty contest to save their life. So, Mongoloids + Caucasoid maybe European geographically, but they will never be considered caucosoid as they are mixing races. Indians are caucasoids just as white Europeans and their mixes, and whether Meditteranean or otherwise will remain within the Caucasoid race. “
As far as I know “caucasoid” is outdated because they previously classified people from South Asia with “caucasoid” while genetic evoidence provide evidences that south Asians can be called a race. So you think that a mix Mongoloid/European like the Komi or Lapp are not European with their nordic looks, while brownies from middle east and India are the so called “aryans”.
You have to understand that you can put popolations in clusters easily according to their geographic locations. Your language tree is interesting but useless, Uralic speaking Hungarians look exactly like their Austrian neighbours. So to come up with this rediculous language related stuff is stupid.
Besides sanskrite is only related with Iranian/Armenian/Greek language family, it clearly is not the “mother of all Indo European languages” as claimed by hindus. Greek is a language that has no analogues in Europe, it’s a languages on its own. We already know where “indo European” languages originated, it’s indeed in Anatolia.
About the classification of races, it needs some serious cleaning up. Genetics research is superior to the dumb language studies of the past or the phenotyping of 19th century. Ah Mongoloids is everybody in the east. We now know that south east Asians are different than the North East Asians. How rediculous it was to group them together just as rediculous it is to group hindus within Europeans.
About your so called typical Mongoloid features: it’s only the extremes you are mentioning, it’s just as silly to claim if you have a few Indians with a straight nose, they all have straights noses, while in real they have hooked noses.
There are people in Spain with blue eyes but it would be rediculous if they pretend that they are all like that, they are exceptions. Well you should look how North East Asians look like, I told you already not to bother with South east asians.
I can understand your desire for “only 3 races” so it would be convenient for you to squeeze unrelated people into one cluster, but you cannot get anway with this now, you could get away with “3 races” in 1912.
There is no such thing as “caucasoid”, it’s outdated, it’s like the APG-66 radar in early F-16 fighter blocks. It’s useless to use it now.
Europeans can be distinguish from middle easterners and south asians, it’s as simple as that.
Surely if so called south Asians are the same as Europeans, the offspring should look more European, but they don’t.
It’s very clear to me how things really are.
Posted by C. M. on May 13, 2006, 08:59 AM | #
“ am saying that Indian and White caucasoids are different in many ways, but are still classified under Caucasoids”
Malcolm A: That’s what I am trying to make clear to you that they shouldn’t classify it under “Caucasoid”.
Why are you holding on to old stuff? How did they know in 19th century that there are more than 3 races? They were ignorant then.
While it is certainly true that everybody has some kind of admixture, the admixture in India is heavily mixed.
While it is very clear to me that middle east is not the same as Europe, Cavalli-Sforza did gave them the green colour in the map. How stupid is that?! Will I get my blonde and blue eyed hotties in Iran? they all look like Arabs!
So stop bothering with this “caucasoid” stuff, how about mulattos, are they caucasoid too?!
Who gives a toss about one iranian looking ancestor who invade in 1200 BC but from then on they mixed extensively with Australoids in India. By the way if those so called “Aryan Iranians” walk on the street now I wouldn’t think of them as Europeans. The hooked noses of Indians is just something from the middle east. I don’t consider Iranians to be white anyway.
Posted by Nio Zilda on May 13, 2006, 10:09 AM | #
Nio...did you get permission to be here...if u didnt then wtf?? dont even talk to me...and as an aside, i was born here...immigrate is what my parents did…
I’m a New Zealander (hence the sobriquet). I assumed you were an immigrant to Australia because your English is so poor.
and they also took a great indian game, cricket, which they now like to claim as their own ans tea…
Ah, do carry on deary. This is all helping the Cause.
Posted by Al Ross on May 13, 2006, 10:33 AM | #
Anjali’s hilariously persistent assaults on reality may well soon persuade Phil Peterson that she has delighted us long enough.
Posted by anjali on May 13, 2006, 02:21 PM | #
“ I assumed you were an immigrant to Australia because your English is so poor.”
u say that like all immigrants have poor english, yet westerners must obviously have A-standards.
I frequently intersperse profanities with what i am trying to say becasue that is the way to communicate with dumb yobbos, who should know that i am not some 2bit that can be pushed around, and AR ur comment isnt worth the time im spending or the blog space needed to give u a reply
Posted by anjali on May 13, 2006, 02:27 PM | #
PS...how come no one has got bak to me on the culture issue, now im feeling all revved up cos i just attended a cultural show with lots of wonderful dancing, singing and other witty performances...J Richards i think its a matter that is important to this entry...why dont u want to talk about...i understand..id be embarassed too if i had a culutre like yours...true its not really worth a mention…
Posted by Ethnocentrist on May 13, 2006, 02:42 PM | #
The real question is why haven’t you addressed any of the issues that J Richards pointed out in his long comment reply to your unfounded histrionics?
As for the “38% of Doctors in America are Indians”, I find that highly dubious firstly and it is no bragging point considering that Indians are simply leeches and nepotistic, secondly. It is no point of contention that when you allow one Indian in, then he quickly metastasizes to a billion or so due to your highly racist favoritism for one another. Most Indian doctors in the US are abhorrently subpar. That is a fact. Most also are on the receiving end of investigations for inappropriate professional behaviour.
I’m sure you do not see any hypocrisy in your views that Indians are allowed to be nepotistic and tribal, yet you behave ignorantly when whites try to do the same. Indians are not ones high on the logic list, are they?
The remaining list that you posted has a recurring theme and that is ALL are US companies or in the US. Where is your equivalent in India? Where are your Microsofts etc? Hmmmm?
LOL
Posted by anjali on May 13, 2006, 03:14 PM | #
yes...they are all us companies...yet their success is thanks to the indians they have working for them...all our “microsofts” are working for bill gates…
educate me as to how the whites are nepotisitc and tribal...im yet to come across of hear of modern day nordic “tribes"…
Today, Asian Indians are the second largest Asian group (2,226,585) in the US, behind only the Chinese (2,762,524). Source: 2003 American Community Survey
Indians own 50% of all economy lodges and 35% of all hotels in the US, which have a combined market value of almost $40 billion. Source: Little India Magazine
One in every nine Indians in the US is a millionaire, comprising 10% of US millionaires. Source: 2003 Merrill Lynch SA Market Study
A University of California, Berkeley, study reported that one-third of the engineers in Silicon Valley are of Indian descent, while 7% o valley hi-tech firms are led by Indian CEOs. Source: Silicon India Readership Survey
NRI’s: Indians have the highest educational qualifications of all ethnic groups in the US. Almost 67% of all Indians have a bachelor’s or high degree (compared to 28% nationally). Almost 40% of all Indians have a master’s, doctorate or other professional degree, which is five times the national average. Source: The Indian American Centre for Political Awareness.
it is highly dubious that the US just hands out these degrees willy-nilly to the Indians...so what ure sayin is that to qualify for a degree in the US your standard has to be sub-par...now why doesnt that suprise me??
Microsoft has large R&D investment in India and many products
are being developed in India
Microsoft employs large number of Indian IT professional
Microsoft has a program to share its Windows source code with
the government agencies
Microsoft has launched many programs like providing
broadband Internet access to schools, and many national
projects bringing government and nation into the digital age.
Narayana Murthy, of Infosys Technologies, endorse Microsoft’s
technologies.
Indians acknowledge the fact that the company Gates has built
up is the biggest and most profitable software firm in the world.
Microsoft said it would invest US$400 million (S$680 million) in India over the next three years in part to triple its staff in Hyderabad to 500 by 2005. ...now why the heck do they want to do that i wonder??
Posted by Ethnocentrist on May 13, 2006, 03:37 PM | #
educate me as to how the whites are nepotisitc and tribal...
They’re not, you ignor"anus". That is part of the point, for if we were, you would not find your sorry ass in Australia and none of the braggadocious Browns would be in the US. Understand? YOU are nepotistic and tribal which is a primary reason for your “success” in the west.
yes...they are all us companies...yet their success is thanks to the indians they have working for them...all our “microsofts” are working for bill gates…
LOL
Surely you jest. Do you honestly think that were it not for the Browns, all these companies would shrivel to oblivion? Also, your “microsofts” are simply leeches on good idea. The question is not how you can bring together a few subpar code writers from a pool of over a billion people. The question is where is the ingenuity to create a Microsoft out this same pool of Brownians?
Page 2 of 9 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last »
Next entry: Multiculturalism and false concessions
Previous entry: Christians singled out
Existential Issues
Of note
Recent Comments
Alex commented in entry 'The New Rome; or, the United States of the World (1853)' on 03/19/10, 06:33 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 06:33 PM. (go) (view)
Alex commented in entry 'The New Rome; or, the United States of the World (1853)' on 03/19/10, 06:28 PM. (go) (view)
Guessedworker commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 05:03 PM. (go) (view)
Søren Renner commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 04:14 PM. (go) (view)
Søren Renner commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 03:52 PM. (go) (view)
ilan commented in entry 'Majority Radio: Bill White’s 2009/11/16 Letter to Alex Linder' on 03/19/10, 11:56 AM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 11:38 AM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 10:46 AM. (go) (view)
Drifter commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 01:58 AM. (go) (view)
Guessedworker commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 01:13 AM. (go) (view)
cladrastis commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 12:59 AM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 12:42 AM. (go) (view)
Søren Renner commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 12:25 AM. (go) (view)
Guessedworker commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/18/10, 11:30 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 11:08 PM. (go) (view)
Guessedworker commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 10:32 PM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 08:02 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 06:38 PM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 02:19 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry 'Romilly Jenkins: Truth and 'Ethnic' Truth' on 03/18/10, 04:10 AM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 02:39 AM. (go) (view)
Wandrin commented in entry 'Europe's Future: Is this what "they" want?' on 03/18/10, 02:17 AM. (go) (view)
Wandrin commented in entry 'Serious Crime - The Ethnic Dimension; Fact and Fantasy' on 03/18/10, 01:45 AM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 01:24 AM. (go) (view)
Guessedworker commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 12:35 AM. (go) (view)
Borvo commented in entry 'Europe's Future: Is this what "they" want?' on 03/17/10, 11:44 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry 'Diasporal Hijinks: Christopher Hitchens and the Janjaweed' on 03/17/10, 10:31 PM. (go) (view)
Maximilio commented in entry 'Is Dr. David Duke, Ph.D., a Kosher Nazi?' on 03/17/10, 10:12 PM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/17/10, 08:01 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/17/10, 07:44 PM. (go) (view)
Robert Reis commented in entry 'Europe's Future: Is this what "they" want?' on 03/17/10, 07:29 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry 'Blowing Bubbles' on 03/17/10, 07:27 PM. (go) (view)
Dan Dare commented in entry 'Blowing Bubbles' on 03/17/10, 06:33 PM. (go) (view)
Dan Dare commented in entry 'Blowing Bubbles' on 03/17/10, 05:44 PM. (go) (view)
Recent Posts
- Automatic for the Sheeple
- Blowing Bubbles
- Serious Crime - The Ethnic Dimension; Fact and Fantasy
- Saturday Riddle Classic
- Apologies for the down-time
- It’s Official – fake money is as good as the real thing (if not better)
- Wadham and the EHRC win. The existential will go ballistic.
- DDR or Third Reich, which would you choose?
- Greece thwarts Barbarossa, yet again
- Europe’s Future: Is this what “they” want?
- ‘Enlightened’ Child Abuse
- My latest teleology
- The Revolution of Kai Murros
- Linda Carty, the Reprieve lie machine, and the bleeding heart of Clive Stafford Smith
- Humour and the English Disease
- True Science is Barbaric
- The New Rome; or, the United States of the World (1853)
- Cameron on Griffin and the MultiCult
- Absurd assumptions about life’s advantages
- Was It Real For You?
General News
Science News
Science Categories
All Categories
The Writers
Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.
Links
Endorsement not implied.
Crime
General
- American Renaissance
- Age of Treason
- Balder
- Brussels Journal
- Civic platform
- CofCC
- Chronicles
- Crosstar
- Culture Wars
- Dissecting Leftism
- Face Right
- Fallen Freedom
- Fred on everything
- Freedom Site
- From The Wilderness
- Frontierist News
- Gates of Vienna
- God help Britain
- Hogtown Front
- I am an Englishman
- Inductivist
- iSteve
- Modern Tribalist
- National Policy Institute
- Occidental Dissent
- Occidental Quarterly
- Our Way of Life
- Oz Conservative
- ParaPundit
- The Political Cesspool
- Romanian National Vanguard
- Rusty Mason
- Renaissance Press
- Right Now magazine
- Salisbury Review
- Sam Francis Column
- Scotchfriend
- Signals From The Brink
- Spoils of War
- Snouck Hurgronje
- Songlight for Dawn
- Stop ACLU
- Tomorrow in Vinland
- Turnabout
- UK Commentators
- Viking Observer
- Western Survival
- White civil rights
Immigration
- American Patrol
- Immigration watchdog
- Immigration Watch Canada
- Limits To Growth
- Migration Watch
- Minutemen
- Numbers USA
- Private police
- Project USA
- Team America
- Vdare
Islam
Jews
- 9/11 – #1, #2
- Banking – #1, #2
- Eric Hufschmid
- Holocaust – #1, #2, #3, #4, #5
- Immigration
- Jewish deception
- Judenfrei
- Michael Delaney
- Subverted nation
- Why the Jews?
Nationalist Political Parties
- British National Party
- Front National (FR)
- Nationaldemokraterna
- Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands
- Vlaams Belang
New Right
Science
Whites in Africa